2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 3, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 7

[ Page 5101 ]

MONDAY, MAY 3, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

HENRY RUCKLE

Hon. M. Coell: It is with sadness that I rise today to announce the passing of Henry Ruckle. Henry Ruckle and his family have a deep connection to my riding. The Ruckle farm is the oldest operating family farm in the Gulf Islands, and 1872 was the time it first began. Henry Ruckle was often described as a good friend of B.C. parks. I'd ask members to join me in extending sincere condolences to his family and friends.

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Yanira Kuper Herrera and Maritzel González-Quevedo, two representatives of the foreign department of the four-million-strong Federation of Cuban Women, who are visiting several cities across Canada to talk about the work they do.

Today several of my colleagues and I met with Yanira and Maritzel and their host, Clara Halber, who is also here. We and our guests agreed it was a very good interchange, and they look forward to establishing an ongoing relationship with the women in our Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1335]

L. Reid: Every summer the legislative tour office hires post-secondary students to deliver tours for the thousands of school children and visitors from all over the world who come to visit the Parliament Buildings.

This summer the tour office is pleased to welcome eight bilingual summer guides. They are Laura Abbott, Otiena Ellwand, Maxim Legault-Mayrand, Geordon Omand, Yianni Pappas-Acreman, Véronique Piercy, Annabel Rixen and Tom Stuart. I'd ask the House to please make them unbelievably welcome — unbelievably.

V. Huntington: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a constituent of mine, Mr. Todd Gates, who is in town for meetings with the Canadian Evaluation Society. Mr. Gates is a well-known thespian and director with our local theatre company, Sidekick Players. I hope the members join me in welcoming him to the House.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome two friends, Sandra Carswell and Jackie Wood. They are realtors with Osborne Realty in Duncan and colleagues of my partner, Leanne Finlayson. They are good friends and good business citizens of the Cowichan Valley. Can the House please make them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

QUALITY CHILD CARE AND RECIPIENTS
OF CHILD CARE AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE

J. McIntyre: The benefits of quality child care are significant, and they touch all of us. That's why the province marks each May as Child Care Month in British Columbia. It's a time to celebrate child care as a vital community service and to thank those who provide it for contributing to healthy child development and a strong provincial economy. Children, parents attending school and work, schools, businesses and communities all reap the benefits of the dedication of child care professionals and early childhood educators right across the province.

While parents remain the first and most important caregivers and teachers for their children, they're supported by these skilled individuals who offer their services in a variety of settings: family day cares, large group centres buzzing with activity, care in the child's own home, as well as preschools and other centres of learning. High-quality care in each of these settings is clearly shown to contribute to healthy child development, later academic success and their overall health and happiness.

As we kick off Child Care Month today, we can all celebrate the contributions of the more than 5,000 licensed facilities, thousands of child care professionals, and 10,000 early childhood educators in B.C. — and recognize the 12 winners of British Columbia's 2010 Child Care Awards of Excellence for their outstanding contributions in supporting the children and families of this province.

Please join me in congratulating Caroline Schier, who is the director of the West Vancouver Child Development Centre. Caroline has been working in various roles at the CDC for the past 17 years and played a key role in developing their infant and toddler program. The West Vancouver CDC would not be what it is today without her.

Congratulations also to Ellen Ruth Muirhead of North Vancouver, Christine Eldon of North Vancouver, Verna Adolph of Lillooet, Harlen Jones of Enderby, AnnaRita Best of Nanaimo, Soonock Lee of Vancouver, Shazmina Herath of Burnaby, Mata Papadogambros of Coquitlam, Sheila Marie Kennedy of Eagle Creek, Mie Hoshino of Vancouver and Dee Conley of Vancouver Island's Quathiaski Cove.
[ Page 5102 ]

Thank you all for turning everyday play into learning opportunities for our children.

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK AND
ATTITUDES TO MENTAL ILLNESS

C. Trevena: If someone has the flu or a stomach bug, has cancer or MS, we as a society understand. They're sick, and we, on the whole, are sympathetic. We give people time off and do fundraising, and there are no questions asked.

But when it comes to mental health, that common generosity of spirit tends to diminish. The sense of understanding declines. So when people are depressed, they're told to pull themselves together. When they're talking to themselves on the street, we cross the road, worried about what they may do. The bulimic adult just needs to get a grip.

We're both dismissive and frightened of mental illness. We can't see it, and we can't understand it. That's why this week, Mental Health Week, is so important. The Canadian Mental Health Association uses the week as an opportunity to show that mental health has to be part of our overall health for individuals and for communities.

Statistics show that one in five Canadians will personally experience a mental illness in their lifetime. Suicide accounts for a quarter of deaths among 15- to 24-year-olds, and almost half of those who feel they've suffered from depression or anxiety never go to see a doctor about it.

[1340]

We live in an era where cost is everything, but think of the cost of not taking mental illness seriously. Statistics show that ten years ago it cost the health care system almost $8 billion, and it's inevitable that those costs will have gone up. For that reason alone, it would seem to be essential that we take mental health issues seriously and work on supports and education to ensure that we have fully healthy people.

It's also incumbent on all of us to be more aware and inclusive. In Campbell River the Beacon Club is a safe and welcoming place for people with mental illness. The 170 members host classes and clubs, meals and outings. Members run the club, and the open houses — the next one is this Wednesday — are always a pleasure to attend. I hope everyone will mark Mental Health Week by taking the issue of mental health very seriously in their own communities.

RICHMOND 911 AWARDS

L. Reid: The eighth annual 911 Awards, hosted by the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, occurred this past week. For the past eight years, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce has brought the community together to honour the courage and contributions of Richmond's highly dedicated emergency service personnel — the RCMP, fire rescue, Canadian Coast Guard, ambulance paramedics and the community safety sector.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the men and women who devote themselves to the service of others. The work you do benefits our society, and it is fitting that you are recognized and thanked for your acts of heroism and commitment to service.

For the Community Safety Award, presented by the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, the winner is Pathways Clubhouse. For the Community Service Award of Valour, the Richmond winner was Grant Keefer. For the career achievement award, British Columbia Ambulance Service, the recipients were support paramedic Clarke McGuire and paramedic Richard McClellan. They were honoured there by Supt. Pascal Rodier.

The Richmond fire rescue recipient was Deputy Chief Ron Beaman. The RCMP recipient was Const. Barry Edwards. The Police Officer of the Year was Const. Dave Purgart in care of the Richmond RCMP detachment. Firefighter or Fire Rescue Crew of the Year was F. Nathan Bavis in care of the Richmond fire rescue.

For the Ambulance Paramedic or Paramedic Crew of the Year, the winner was advanced care paramedics John Richmond and Brad Campbell, again joined by their superintendent, Mr. Pascal Rodier.

The Coast Guard Employer Volunteer of the Year was Dave Schur, leading seaman rescue diver, and he was joined by Brian Wootton, who is a representative of the Canadian Coast Guard.

I am grateful for the work that you all do on behalf of our community. First responders are amazing people. I believe in the 911 Awards as they offer us a chance to pay tribute to individuals whose courage, skill and professionalism contribute to the well-being of our community. My gratitude to the chamber of commerce, who continue to strengthen our community. My thanks to Craig Jones and Carol Young for another wonderful tribute.

1973 OIL SPILL IN COASTAL
WATERS NEAR VANCOUVER

G. Gentner: When the House resumed on Tuesday, September 25, 1973, Premier Dave Barrett stood up and gave details of the early morning oil spill caused by a collision of two freighters just off Point Atkinson. The Erawan had been struck amidships by the bow of the Sun Diamond.

The Premier stated that a 30-foot hole in the Erawan ruptured the fuel tanks containing 500 tonnes of bunker oil. An estimated 250 tonnes of oil escaped from the tanks into the open sea and was not contained. With prevailing winds blowing from the southeast, most of the oil slicks moved up Howe Sound rather than impacting English Bay.
[ Page 5103 ]

However, by the next day a quarter of the oil washed up on the beaches. Dying mallards and gulls smeared with oil were reported on Bowen Island at Snug Cove hotel in Deep Bay. As the Vancouver Sun reported, Caulfeild Cove, once one of the prettiest inlets, was an oil-covered mess, its rocky shores black and gooey.

A three-mile stretch of oil reached over beaches from Sandy Cove and Ambleside, including Dundarave, Garrow Bay and Whytecliff. By Thursday, along with oil globules and oil-soaked seaweed washing up on Kitsilano beach and the Stanley Park shoreline, there were dead fish rolling up over the waves. With the sponge-like properties of bales of straw and peat moss and with thousands of feet of oil booms and towed slick-lickers, a large part of the oil was contained.

After the Premier's remarks, MLA David Anderson responded: "The spill is an indication of the problems we may well face due to the failure to properly understand and appreciate the difficulties in opposing a far more dangerous and far more difficult problem, that of the Alaskan shipment of oil from Valdez to Cherry Point." Prophetic words indeed.

[1345]

But as details of the current catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico begin to unfold and memories of the far distant oil spill of the Exxon Valdez…. No one, not even urbanites, is immune to the impacts oil has on marine habitat and our own immediate environment.

HOSTING OF ALLAN CUP
IN FORT ST. JOHN

P. Pimm: This year on April 19 to 24, my hometown of Fort St. John hosted one of the most prestigious events in Canadian hockey. The Allan Cup has a history of 102 years as an AAA Senior Hockey Championship, and as always, this year was another great success story.

This year's qualifying teams were the Powell River Regals, Bentley Generals from Alberta, South East Prairie Thunder from Manitoba, the Dundas Real McCoys representing Ontario, Clarenville Caribous from Newfoundland, and the host team, Fort St. John Flyers.

The event was chaired by Paul van Nostrand of Fort St. John. Paul and his committee of 25 subchairs, along with approximately 200 volunteers, did an extremely great job of hosting this event, and I'd like to extend my congratulations for a job well done. Everyone I talked with told me that this event hosted in Fort St. John was as good as or better than any Allan Cup they'd ever been at.

Something I didn't realize is that the host community has to help out with travel and accommodations for all the travelling teams. This cost is substantial — close to $250,000 out of a $350,000 budget. Thanks to all the great work from the volunteers and support from the community, the Fort St. John's Allan Cup committee will at least break even with their event.

Every year there's some fantastic hockey played at the Allan Cup, and this year was no different. This year, the host team, the Fort St. John Flyers were not the most gracious hosts. As they went undefeated in the round robin, they beat the South East Prairie Thunder in the semifinals and met up with their old nemesis, the Bentley Generals, in the final.

The Bentley Generals were the defending champions of a year ago and had beaten Fort St. John out in the last three previous years. However, this year it would be different. The host team beat Bentley in the tournament opener and went on to beat them again in the final to win their first ever Allan Cup national championship.

What an extremely great feat for a small, northern British Columbia community. Congratulations to the Flyers and, again, a big thank you to the organizing committee and the community of Fort St. John.

PROTECTION OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

M. Sather: May 2 to 8 is Drinking Water Week. In the words of the B.C. Water and Waste Association: "A safe, reliable water supply is critical to the success of a community. It creates jobs, attracts industry and investment, and provides for the health and welfare of citizens in ways ranging from disease prevention to fire suppression. Water is a limited resource that must be protected and conserved."

I believe that drinking water will be a greater concern than declining fossil fuels in the coming decades. Drinking water resources are under threat in North America and in British Columbia. Oversubscription to groundwater has led to dropping water tables, particularly south of the border.

We have problems with water shortages in the dry interior and even on the coast from time to time. Boil water advisories in the province are not uncommon.

British Columbians have concerns about the direct and indirect uses of potable water. Water allocation and stream health is widely recognized as a significant issue in the province. British Columbians also have questions about the steep increase in water licence applications by resource companies.

Many are concerned about the explosion in the use of bottled water which requires a lot of petroleum resources to produce and oftentimes has no health advantage over tap water. Millions of water bottles end up in our landfills or will be incinerated.

There are many things we can do to conserve water: water your lawn less or not at all, reduce or eliminate washing your driveway, take shorter showers, check your toilets and faucets for leaks, turn off the water while brushing your teeth, purchase water-efficient appliances, install low-flow showerheads and toilets, and wash your car with a bucket instead of a hose.
[ Page 5104 ]

Let's all do our part to protect and conserve our drinking water.

Oral Questions

MORATORIUM ON OFFSHORE
OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES

J. Horgan: Since 1972 there's been a moratorium in place protecting our wild west coast from oil and gas exploitation. In light of this government's desire over the past ten years to urge the federal government to lift the moratorium — as early as 2003, in the throne speech; the Premier to a private audience of business people in Hong Kong in 2009; and as recently as last fall, when the minister said it was the objective of this government to encourage the federal government to lift the moratorium….

[1350]

In light of the disaster facing us in the Gulf of Mexico today, will the minister join with the vast majority of British Columbians and call on the federal government to keep the moratorium in place at all costs?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What we want to do, first and foremost — and I think I can share for both sides of the House — is express our deep concern and our condolences to the families of the men and women that were lost in this tragedy in the Gulf.

What I do want to point out is that we do not have offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia. What we have said as a government is that we are willing to look at it only if it can be done in an environmentally sound, scientifically safe and socially responsible manner. We have never wavered from that position, nor would we.

I think I can speak for all British Columbians when I say that we watch what is taking place in the Gulf with great concern. I hope that they can contain this, they can do their best, do the study that's necessary to find out what went wrong, and the world can learn from that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I think the science is in, on our television screens and in reports from the Gulf Coast. The livelihood of literally millions of people evaporated for the profits driven by British Petroleum in the Gulf. We want — on this side of the House and British Columbians right across this province — this government to stand up today, identify the obvious environmental catastrophe that's taking place in the Gulf and ensure that it will not happen here by putting the precautionary principle first, saying to the federal government: "Leave the moratorium in place." Will the minister do that today for all British Columbians?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will go back to what I said earlier to the member. We have made a commitment that we are not in favour of extracting resources at any cost. What we have said is that we would be prepared to look at it, if it could be done in an environmentally sound, scientifically safe manner, one that needs a great deal of work.

But what I do want to point out…. I'm going to read something into the record from the member opposite, who just asked the question, the member for Juan de Fuca on CHNL radio, July 15, 2008: "We should look at offshore ten or 20 years from now when supplies are absolutely critical."

I guess the only difference between our side and your side is the time frame, Member.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: If it's duelling quotes, let's try this one from the throne speech, which I believe was laying out the government's platform in 2003: "…your government wants to have an offshore oil and gas industry that is up and running…." In 2006 the Premier said he wanted to see the moratorium lifted in two or three years.

In light of 30-foot waves on the north coast, hundred-mile-an-hour winds and a couple of fault lines, won't the minister agree with me and the majority of British Columbians that putting what's happening on the Gulf Coast on the north coast is the wrong way to go, and will he advise the federal government to maintain the moratorium now and into the future?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What we have said and what we stand by is that our resource extraction will only happen in this province if it can be done environmentally safe, scientifically sound and socially responsible. I think we have a great and proud history in this province of making sure we look after the environment, making sure we meet the needs of the people of British Columbia in a socially responsible manner. We're committed to doing that, and that's where we're going to stay standing on this issue.

Let's make it very clear. This is an issue for all of us, not just in British Columbia, but around the world — watching the incident unfold in the Gulf of Mexico. We all wish everybody the opportunity to clean this up, get on and learn from this.

[1355]

R. Fleming: The Minister of Energy makes it sound like the people of Louisiana signed on for unsafe and unscientific drilling when he stands in this House and gives the same assurances that they were given by British Petroleum executives and politicians down there.

You would think that on a day when what could be the United States' worst oil spill in history…. You would
[ Page 5105 ]
think, with that leakage continuing uncontrollably, that the Energy Minister might take the day off instead of promoting yet again an end to the federal moratorium on oil drilling on British Columbia's coast. But no, he didn't do that.

So will somebody — the Premier or his designate — on that side of the House open their eyes to the risks that offshore drilling posed in Louisiana for British Petroleum? Will this government instead today assure British Columbians that this disaster won't happen here because it won't ever be allowed to happen here — period?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to point out again for the member and all British Columbians, so that people are clear: there is no offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia today. What we have said is that if this resource is ever to be looked at, it can only be looked at as we look towards an environmentally safe and responsible manner.

Let's be clear. Both sides of this House have agreed that they would look at it. I just read a quote into the record for the member. Member, I want to tell you that it doesn't matter whether you're a New Democrat, whether you're a Social Credit member, whether you're a B.C. Liberal. The issue of looking after our environment, the issue of making sure we maintain a quality of life in this province is shared by every British Columbian, including myself, and I'm going to ensure that continues.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Deepwater Horizon was a state-of-the-art oil rig, yet the disaster in the Gulf has demonstrated that no technology can ever stop devastating oil spills from occurring. This minister knows or ought to know that an oil spill off British Columbia's sensitive coast would be devastating. It would wipe out the orca population. It would wipe out our salmon species. It would wipe out species at risk up and down the coastlines of British Columbia.

Given the massive destruction we're seeing in the Gulf, will somebody from this government stop pushing the federal government to lift the moratorium on coastal drilling in British Columbia unequivocally?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: One more time. We have said that when we look at resource development in this province, we are going to ensure that if it is ever to proceed it will be done in an environmentally sound, scientifically safe and socially responsible manner. I can't think of something more determined for British Columbians than to ensure those guidelines are met.

What I do want to let the people of British Columbia know…. Again, I'll speak for both sides of the House as we move forward. We will ensure that we meet the highest environmental standards to ensure that we maintain the quality of life that British Columbians enjoy.

More importantly, we all have to live in this world. We all have to find and extract the resources that you and I, on both sides of this House, utilize every day, Member. We're going to ensure that continues at the highest standards possible.

S. Simpson: The problem is this. Based on the throne speech, based on the comments of the Premier, based on the comments of this minister, if the government had its way the moratorium would be gone today and the process would already be in play. That's the problem here.

Will the minister commit today that this government will ask — will call on — the federal government to reject any lifting of the moratorium now?

[1400]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What we have said is that we will develop our resources only if it can be done in a scientifically safe and environmentally responsible manner. Also I want to point out that we have no offshore oil and gas development in this province today, and there will be none unless it can be done in a way that is sound scientifically and environmentally responsible. We will not jeopardize the environment in which we all live and enjoy the quality of life.

What I do find interesting is that this issue happened on April 20, two weeks ago tomorrow. The first question we get today is on a disaster like this.

Member, I'm pointing out that we'll maintain the highest environmental standards not only in this country but in North America when it comes to ensuring that resource extraction is done in the proper manner.

S. Fraser: The problem with this government is that environmental policy is usually eclipsed by who donates to the party.

As the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I represent the outer coast of Vancouver Island, from Huu-ay-aht territory….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat, Member.

Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: As the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I represent the outer coast of Vancouver Island from Huu-ay-aht territory in the south to Hesquiaht territory in the north. That includes Bamfield; the Broken Islands group; Barkley Sound; the Alberni Inlet; Ucluelet; Tofino; Long Beach; all of Clayoquot Sound, a UNESCO biosphere reserve. As well, I represent the inner coast of Vancouver
[ Page 5106 ]
Island from Qualicum Beach to Deep Bay. There is so much at risk, hon. Speaker.

To the minister — let's try the Minister of Environment: will he assure this House today, my constituents and the people of British Columbia that there will be no gas and oil drilling off our coast?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What I can tell the member opposite is what we have said: as a responsible government, there will be no offshore oil and gas drilling unless it can be done in an environmentally safe and responsible manner. We've made that commitment.

Again, I want to read a quote. "We should look at offshore ten or 20 years from now, when supplies are absolutely critical." The issue for the opposition appears to be not about the environment but about the timing of the decision. We've stood firm on our decision that we will not pursue this resource unless it can be done in an environmentally sustainable manner, one that maintains the quality of life for your constituents and for every British Columbian.

FUEL REMOVAL FROM
QUEEN OF THE NORTH

G. Coons: When the Queen of the North sank, the Minister of Environment promised the Gitga'at of Hartley Bay that the wreck would be cleaned up. Hon. Speaker, 250,000 litres of diesel and 30,000 litres of oil and hydraulic oil were on the ship when it sank.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. It's been over four years. Why hasn't he fulfilled his promise to the Gitga'at and cleaned up the wreck?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. At the time of the tragic sinking of the Queen of the North and the loss of two lives, the Ministry of Environment as well as federal agencies responded to that incident and, working with an organization known as Burrard Clean, put containment booms in place and worked to recover as much of the diesel fuel that had escaped as possible.

However, the Canadian Coast Guard advised that it was not practical to drill down a thousand feet under the surface to extract the fuel that might be remaining on that vessel. That was the advice given by the Canadian Coast Guard.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: The Gitga'at as well as British Columbians have no reason to trust this government. The Gitga'at continue to be concerned about the upwelling from the Queen of the North. Here's a quote: "Daily monitoring of the area reveals a continued release of hydrocarbons, and as the ship deteriorates, it will leak more toxic substances, including asbestos and heavy metals, into a rich sea life habitat."

My question is to the minister again. What has he done to address these concerns, and why hasn't he kept this promise to clean up the Queen of the North wreck?

Hon. B. Penner: The member might want to do some homework and check his facts, because at no time did I make the statement that he's alleging. What I did say is that we would work with those communities to reduce the risk, and we did that. We worked with federal agencies to recover as much of the diesel fuel as possible and to contain its spread.

If the member wants to disagree with engineers….

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: If the member thinks his opinion should supersede that of engineers who work for the Canadian Coast Guard, who said that the risk of extracting the remaining fuel exceeded the benefits, and if he wants to put in jeopardy the shellfish beds in that area by recklessly pursuing his idea instead of that of professional engineers, then we have a legitimate disagreement.

D. Donaldson: First Nations all across the northwest — the Wet'suwet'en, the Haida, the Haisla, the Gitga'at and many others — have grave concerns about oil spills in our waters. It's been four years since the Queen of the North sank.

This government says it cares about the environment. It says it cares about oil spills. So to the Minister of Environment: when will he and this government finally get around to cleaning up the wreck's dangerous cargo? If, as he says, the engineers say it's impossible to clean up oil from a ship that's sunk this far down, then will he commit today to see no oil supertankers on the coast of northwest B.C.?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm surprised that a member coming from the part of the province, as he does, hasn't done his homework on this issue about the Queen of the North. If he had, he would find that the professional engineers have written a detailed report that said that with a vessel down a thousand feet below the surface of the waves, the risk of trying to drill down through the superstructure of that vessel and extract the fuel from the Queen of the North exceeded the benefits. I'm surprised he hasn't done that amount of homework.

There's something else he hasn't done. Apparently, he doesn't read his local newspaper.

Interjections.
[ Page 5107 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Penner: It appears he also doesn't keep up with the local newspaper, because on August 20, 2008, here's what the Northern Sentinel newspaper reported. In regards to northern tanker traffic, the Leader of the Opposition said: "We've certainly given it a yellow light and a caution about looking at the environmental concerns." The member's own leader certainly didn't say no to tanker traffic when she was in Kitimat talking about potential job benefits, so it's a little bit rich to hear it from him here today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second, Member.

Member for Nanaimo.

APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE IN CRANBROOK

L. Krog: An accused cocaine dealer in Cranbrook argues successfully that it takes too long to get to trial. As a result, he walks free. The problem? There aren't enough Provincial Court judges. So my question to the Attorney General is very simple. When is he going to appoint another Provincial Court judge for that region?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member's question related to an appointment in Cranbrook. That appointment has been made.

APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE
FOR SUNSHINE COAST AREA

N. Simons: In addition to concerns around appointments of Provincial Court judges and the length of time between vacancies and those appointments, those court judges also deal with family matters. In my constituency of Powell River–Sunshine Coast we've been without a judge for approximately six months. My question is simple, and I'm hoping I get the same answer from the minister. When will he appoint a judge for the lower Sunshine Coast?

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question. I had an opportunity to meet with mayors and chiefs from the Sunshine Coast. We reviewed the circumstances that exist within the court there, including the fact that the court continues to sit for between three and four days per week. To suggest that the court is not sitting would be incorrect.

I understand, however, the preference of the communities on the Sunshine Coast to have a resident judge. I indicated to the local leaders, mayors and chiefs that we would be engaged in discussions with the chief judge about that matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: The problem is that it takes approximately eight to ten months to set a date for a family court hearing. These are families that are going through crises. These are families that need some resolution offered by the courts.

Why has it taken this government so long to address this issue — letter after letter, and finally a meeting with local government representatives? What is taking so long for the Attorney General to appoint a judge for Sechelt?

Hon. M. de Jong: We work closely via the auspices of the court services branch with the office of the chief judge. We have a new chief judge, His Honour Judge Crabtree. We have worked closely with that office, and we'll continue to do so to ensure that the justice needs, both civil and criminal, are met right across the province.

INVESTIGATION INTO ACTIVITIES
OF T. RICHARD TURNER

S. Chandra Herbert: My question is to the Minister of Citizens' Services. The Lobbyists Registration Act has precluded the registrar of lobbyists from investigating potential lobbyist violations predating April 1 of this year. Given that, it's incumbent upon this government and this minister to answer questions about how T. Richard Turner, this government's appointed chair of ICBC, conducted himself in the B.C. Place roof and casino project.

Has this government done an internal investigation into Mr. Turner's potential violation of the public service code of conduct, and if so, what did it find?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I understand it, the registrar examined the matter with respect to the legislation that was in place at the time and issued a report — which, I think, the member has had an opportunity to review — and has dealt with it on that basis.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I don't think you can pass the buck on this one. We had questions about lobbying, and we had questions about breaking the public service code of conduct — two separate issues.

The Premier told this House that he agrees with the public service code of conduct, which states that it's a conflict of interest if a government appointee "benefits from, or is reasonably perceived by the public to have
[ Page 5108 ]
benefited from, a government transaction" over which he or she "can influence decisions."

The Minister of Tourism confirmed that government appointee T. Richard Turner called him, urging that $563 million of taxpayers' money be spent on the retractable roof, as it was, according to the minister, "essential" for the private company that Mr. Turner sits on the board of.

The registrar has said that he can't look into this. We understand that. The public service code of conduct goes to the higher power — that is, this government and this minister. What steps has this minister taken, if any, to determine if the code of conduct has been broken? Will he release that information today?

Hon. M. de Jong: The chair of the ICBC, Mr. Turner, has served the province with distinction in a number of capacities, most recently as chair. As I recall, his term in that office is coming to a close. We are grateful for the contribution that Mr. Turner has made.

[1415]

I find it unfortunate that the member would return and suggest that perhaps Mr. Turner has not conducted himself in accordance with the highest possible standards.

N. Macdonald: This speaks to the standards of this government. There are questions around what took place with T. Richard Turner. Has there been an investigation into T. Richard Turner — his conduct in this manner? And if there is, when is the government going to make that information public?

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Turner has conducted himself as chair of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia with distinction. We are grateful and thank him for that contribution. It is a…. His term in that office is drawing to a close. If this member or any other member has a specific allegation that they wish to make about Mr. Turner, then they should step outside this chamber and make it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, I mean, these are legitimate questions that go to the heart of the government's standards for how they're going to conduct themselves. For the minister to stand up and just say, "Trust us on this" as a government…. I mean, how exactly is the public supposed to trust this government? Same way that they…. Are they supposed to trust them like when this government promised not to bring in the HST? Is that how they're supposed to trust them? Or is it not fair to ask the government to account and to explain something that people have legitimate concerns about?

The question is: how has this government gone about investigating the activities of T. Richard Turner? When that investigation is completed, will it be made public? That's a simple question, a straightforward question. Who is going to conduct that investigation? When's it going to be reported?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I recall, this member and others spent considerable time canvassing this very issue in another debate in this chamber — in an estimates debate.

It may serve the opposition's political agenda to come into this chamber where protections are afforded and cast aspersions on the character of an individual who has served the province well, but the real test is whether or not this member or any other member is prepared to step outside of the protected confines of this chamber and make the same sort of allegations that they are prone to make in this House.

J. Kwan: The minister knows very well that in the case of T. Richard Turner, the case was not looked into by the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, because of a technicality. What we're asking about on this side of the House is: has this government done any work looking into potential issues of misconduct related to the violation of the code of conduct that the government has set out for its own appointments — if they've actually examined that issue with regards to T. Richard Turner's conduct?

Hon. M. de Jong: Interesting way to put the question. Absent any shred of evidence that the individual involved, that Mr. Turner…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …has not complied with all of the rules and all of the laws that were in place at the time. The members come into this chamber and want to besmirch that individual's reputation, the reputation of someone who has provided a service to the people of British Columbia and for which we are very grateful.

[1420]

I think it's unfortunate that members would succumb to the political temptation of besmirching someone's reputation for nothing more than the attempt to score political points. I think it's a very sad day.

[End of question period.]

M. Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction.
[ Page 5109 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome the grade 5 class from Corpus Christi elementary. They're here in the Legislature today. They're accompanied by their grade 5 teacher, Mrs. Olympia Monteiro; their teacher's assistant, Mrs. Melanie Larabie; the computer and library teacher, Mr. Anthony Chung; as well as a number of parents: Mrs. Seban, Mr. Lore, Mrs. Au, Mrs. Wang, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Don Remedios, Mrs. Lee, Mrs. Tan and Ms. Gladyz Velasco. A very lively group, and I hope everybody makes them feel very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development — and in this chamber, we'll begin with second reading of Bill 12.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Gunshot and Stab Wound
Disclosure Act

Hon. M. de Jong: I move Bill 12 be read a second time now.

This legislation, the new Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act, will, in effect, require health facilities to report the fact that they are providing treatment to patients with gunshot wounds — all gunshot — and, in certain cases, stab wounds. It derives in part from one of the commitments made about a year ago in the government's seven-point plan to combat gang and gun violence.

Members may recall that in 2008-2009, gang-related activities seemed to be on the ascendancy, and the carnage, even insofar as innocent bystanders, was seen to be and was escalating. The proposed legislation before the House will, in our view, enhance public safety by increasing the consistency of reporting these violent injuries. The objective there is to provide the police and investigating authorities with every opportunity to respond in a more timely way to high-risk incidents involving firearms or knives.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I can tell members of the House that similar legislative provisions exist in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, and I am advised that Alberta announced the introduction of similar legislation just last month.

Our legislation, Bill 12 here in British Columbia, would establish that every health care facility — and health care facility is defined within the context of the act — that treats a person with a gunshot or stab wound, and there are exceptions in the case of stab wounds, would be required to verbally report the following information to the police of the local jurisdiction in which the health care facility is located: the person's name, if that's known; the fact that the person is being treated or has been treated for a gunshot or stab wound; the name and location of the health care facility; and any other information that the regulations may require.

Most health authorities, I'm advised, have already adopted and implemented reporting procedures that permit staff to report these kinds of incidents to the police. What this statute does — or will do, if and when it's passed — is make reporting mandatory, and it requires other types of health facilities, such as walk-in clinics or even doctors' offices, to also be responsible for reporting.

[1425]

It will make the disclosure of these gunshot and stab wounds consistent across the province, and it will clarify the obligations that exist for health care facilities. As I said a moment ago, the legislation will define what is meant by health facilities that would be required to report.

As a way of summary, though, it will include hospitals and other institutions and organizations that deliver health care: clinics, doctors' offices, paramedics. Each facility would be required to ensure that a person has been designated for the task of providing the disclosure, although I should emphasize that the obligation accrues to the facility as opposed to individual health care professionals.

Health facilities will be expected to notify the local police as soon as is reasonably practicable, but the point here is that the legislation acknowledges that the first priority will be providing the injured person with treatment. So the reporting requirement will not and must not be allowed to interfere with the primary priority and the primary obligation, which is to provide adequate treatment.

There is, within the provisions of the legislation, protection from liability for health care professions, and that's addressed specifically in the bill. The legislation would not place health care professionals in conflict with their respective professional ethical codes and the existing legislation that protects patient confidentiality.

Some have observed, in what I think has been a generally favourable response to the legislation, that the bill does not create an offence per se — and that is true — for failing to report to police. The government has taken the view that health care practitioners are self-regulated professions and that their respective colleges have well-established standards or practices and codes of conduct for addressing the issues around enforcement.
[ Page 5110 ]

As I said, the legislation governs all gunshot wounds regardless of who is responsible for inflicting the wound. There is something of a subjective test attached to the definition of "stab wound." It is defined in the legislation, and health care facilities would not be called upon to report stab wounds that are accidental injuries or self-inflicted.

In part, the concern, aside from practical considerations, was to protect patients who may be suicidal or mentally ill and who are being treated for self-inflicted wounds and not have them find themselves caught up in a criminal justice investigative process.

There have been fairly extensive consultations leading up to the introduction of the bill. The following health sector groups were consulted on gunshot wound reporting: the B.C. Medical Association and the association's emergency medicine committee; health authorities at the CEO level, through the Health Leadership Council; the College of Physicians and Surgeons; the College of Registered Nurses; and the College of Licensed Practical Nurses.

The government has also consulted with victim services organizations and agencies, including the Ending Violence Association, Battered Women's Support Services, Surrey Women's Centre and the Vancouver and Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services. We also consulted with the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

By way of summary, I can advise the House that all of these groups have expressed positive support for the introduction of mandatory gunshot and stab wound reporting.

The reporting of this information, in our view, will ensure that the police can follow up on critical incidents in a timely way. It means that they can ensure that they can enforce rules respecting the proper registration and storage of guns, ensure that victims are provided needed services and, just as importantly, prevent any further harm to other people in their community.

[1430]

The logic, particularly with respect to gunshot wounds and any stab wounds relating to violence, is that if you are involved in that kind of activity…. As it relates to gangster activity, there are apparently some people out there that think it's okay to play with guns, but if you are injured as a result, you are going to speak to the police if you are seeking medical treatment.

The government believes that that is an appropriate step to take and an appropriate requirement and is pleased that the agencies with whom we have consulted in the medical and public safety fields agree.

With that, I will look forward to comments from other members on Bill 12.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to second reading on Bill 12, the gunshot- and stab-wound-reporting legislation. I think it is an important bill.

I have some comments, wondering why it has taken so long. The fact that it's tabled in the week when most of the people in this province are focused on the HST and the need to defeat that, and government members feeling under pressure around the HST and is there any way to divert the attention away from that issue…. I don't know whether or not the government's rationale for introducing it at this time was to try and do that.

I'll talk about that in a minute. At the moment what I want to talk about is this particular piece of legislation, a bit on how it came into being, how I believe it can be a useful tool, the fact that the opposition does have some questions around its implementation, which we will want to talk about in committee stage, but also some concerns that have been raised that are legitimate that we will want to see answers to in committee stage and that I think are important to get on the record.

The Attorney General has said that this had its genesis over a year ago when the Attorney General said that gang-related activities seemed to be increasing. That is one way of putting it. I think the public and the opposition had other words for it: there was a gang war. There was an all-out gang war in this province that resulted in the killings of innocent people.

It was a war in which the government was initially slow to react. It was at a time when we saw cuts being proposed to budgets, not only in the Solicitor General's ministry but also in the Attorney General's ministry, that would have potentially hamstrung some efforts in terms of dealing with that gang war. In fact, as I recall at the particular time, there was a throne speech delivered where crime and public safety were not even mentioned.

I think it's important to put that on the table. At a time when we had a throne speech in September of '09 — a throne speech in '08 as well — crime and public safety was not even mentioned. We went through months of a gang war in the Lower Mainland and other parts of this province where people were literally terrified of what was taking place.

You had shootings in broad daylight, not only in Abbotsford but in Langley. The government's response at that time, the initial response, was to hold a press conference with the Premier and the chiefs of police and E division, everybody standing shoulder to shoulder: "We're going to do something." But it continued.

Finally, public outrage, I think, shamed the government into being more proactive, and they announced a seven-point plan. That's over a year ago.

[1435]

The seven-point plan included some changes at the federal level, which the opposition supported — two-for-one credits, for example — and felt were changes that needed to be made. It included additional policing resources, again which the opposition believes are necessary.
[ Page 5111 ]

There were other things which we think should have been included which were not included. One of the things I have said in the past that I would like to see is an increase in the number of auditors we have to be able to better track the money — that we try and get an agreement with Ottawa around, for example, having teams of dedicated auditors, over and above what we have right now, whose sole job is to track the money of those involved in gang activity.

We've seen a number of cases whereby money appears to be linked to family businesses, where there is a denial of involvement of the gangster, yet the reality is that that business is involved to some extent in terms of either the potential for laundering money…. This side of the House, for example, said that those were some initiatives we should be looking at.

Another thing that I have said I would like to have seen in the seven-point plan at the time was around the ability, for example, on passports. People associated in drug trafficking, gang activity, violent criminal types — how are they able to obtain passports and travel to jurisdictions to conduct illegal activity?

As I said, I'd like Ottawa to be taking a harder line on that, and I think there are opportunities to do that. Again, that's something I would like to have seen in the seven-point plan. It wasn't, but those are things that we will continue to push for.

This was one of those things that was in the plan, and I'm glad it's here now. I just want to know why it's taken so long, because it seems pretty straightforward to me. The issue here is around the reporting of gunshot wounds to individuals who show up into a hospital, a medical facility, for example. It would require the reporting not by the doctor but by the medical facility. I think that is potentially an important tool for law enforcement in helping to deal with the fight against gang crime that we have in this province.

I think we're all aware of cases and stories where individuals have shown up at hospitals suffering gunshot wounds, are uncooperative and just want to get in and get out and be discharged. This is something that hampers the police investigation into what's taking place, and that's not acceptable.

I think one of the things we need to do, as much as possible, is to have those tools in place that will allow the police to do an even better job than what they're doing right now, to allow them to get on top of every possible angle, every possible lead, to use every possible opportunity to either do a thorough investigation, particularly when weapons are being used…. One of the obvious, clearly, is a gunshot wound. That's one of the reasons why we will be supporting this particular piece of legislation.

The other issue that's dealt with in this legislation is around knives and stabbings. Again, much of that is related to gang-related violence in British Columbia. Again, it's been a serious problem. There has been no requirement for the reporting of that in this province.

Other provinces have already taken that step. As the Attorney General stated a few moments ago, Alberta is considering upgrading their legislation to what we have here in British Columbia. Legislation such as this, what we have in this province, already exists in Saskatchewan, Ontario and, I believe, Manitoba, where it originated. So it is not something that is new, but I think it is a commonsense approach to what is a very serious issue.

[1440]

One of the questions that always comes up in discussions of this nature — around the mandatory reporting, for example — is the issues around privacy — issues concerning physicians, for example, and their responsibility and people acting in good faith and questions around liability.

One of the things that I am pleased with in this legislation is that both the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the BCMA have said that they approve of it, that it has their support. The Civil Liberties Association has raised some concerns about issues of privacy, and I think it's important to ask those questions.

I think it's important to put those questions on the record so that in committee stage we can ask the minister those questions, get them on the record so that the minister is able to answer them and, hopefully, put to rest the concerns of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association that, you know, there is a potential — I don't believe there is — that people will not seek medical treatment.

The issue that I think is of even a greater concern is the issue of spousal abuse and violence against women. Again, I think the legislation is a good piece of legislation, but we will certainly put those questions to the minister and get answers on the record. I think that we will be able to satisfy those particular concerns but also address other issues on how this may fit into a much broader overall gang strategy in the province of British Columbia.

The penalties are, I think, important in this particular case. I notice that in other provinces, for example, the potential for fines are up to $25,000. In this legislation, they are around $100,000. Again, I think that is a significant improvement.

I think the one area that this particular piece of legislation doesn't address…. In some ways, I'm not sure how you would. I think it's one of those questions we will explore in the committee stage debate on this bill. It is around — and we have seen cases of it in this province — where someone involved in gang activity tries to seek out a physician outside of a hospital or outside of a medical clinic, either in a physician's home or in a private setting, to get treatment.

There was a case that I think occurred last summer where the individual…. The phone calls were intercepted in terms of the surveillance of this person, who
[ Page 5112 ]
I think is now awaiting trial or has been sentenced to jail in the States. Part of the evidence was that they were trying to locate a physician in the Okanagan who would be able to treat the individual outside of a hospital. My understanding is that did not take place, but I think it gives an indication of some of the problems that we may still face with this particular piece of legislation.

Again, those are questions that we will ask in committee stage, which brings me back to the point, as I said, that we're going to be supporting this legislation. It is something that we have called for in the past. It is something that I think is long overdue in this province. I think it sends a strong message.

I think it sends a message to the community that, you know, if someone's shot and it's not a self-inflicted wound or it's not accidental — and physicians are pretty good at determining many of those things — then that's okay; that's not going to be covered. But clearly, when something is used in this particular situation where it's of a violent nature, then I think it is the right thing to do to have that reported to the police.

I know in the legislation, I think, one of the questions that first comes up, for example, is around stab wounds. People do accidentally stab themselves. I know I have cut my thumb or finger on more than one occasion when….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: It's not a stab wound? But I have cut myself and once accidentally stabbed….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: When cooking or cutting something. Those things happen.

[1445]

If people think that the legislation is broad enough that it deals with those things and causes problems in that, one of the things that the opposition has looked for in its examination of the bill is to ensure that that does not take place — that we're not creating unnecessary problems there.

Again, those are issues that will be dealt with in terms of looking at committee stage on the particular piece of legislation to ensure that the sections that are there to deal with that are, in fact, the right sections to do that.

During the discussion around committee stage on this particular piece of legislation, if we find that there are ways that it could be improved, I would encourage and commend to the government side, if the opposition makes a constructive improvement by way of an amendment, to seriously consider the amendment and not to be afraid of adopting an amendment that would improve a bill, make a bill potentially more effective and a better tool for the police as a tool in helping to combat gang violence.

I know that other colleagues of mine in the House want to say some words on this, because I think this is an issue that has touched or is of concern to British Columbians right across the province, but particularly some of the areas that have been infested, I would say, with gang violence over the last number of years.

I think it's appropriate that we take some time just to acknowledge that, to recognize that that's a serious problem that the public does want action on. I think it's important that we recognize that in this particular piece of legislation — that this is another tool, and it's an important tool.

My one criticism is that I just wish it had been brought in earlier. Had it been brought in earlier, we probably could have given it even more attention than it received when it was tabled, as opposed to being overshadowed by the HST debate in this province.

Having said that, I look forward to the debate on this particular piece of legislation, and I look forward to the committee stage discussion on the bill. With that, I will take my seat and look forward to the comments of other colleagues.

L. Krog: I'm sure all of us have seen at some time that Jimmy Cagney movie where he talks about: "You dirty rat." Well, I'm not suggesting the bill's a rat, but whenever I see a bill that only runs to three pages, you sort of have to ask the basic question: why a three-page bill? Now, is this some problem that's just arisen, some emergency, some dramatic piece of public need that gives rise to this? Or is it — and this is where the opposition is always suspicious — a bit of a public relations exercise?

The House has before it now a bill, Bill 20, 93 pages long — 93 pages covering all sorts of ministries, numerous changes. Yet, for something which on the face of it appears relatively straightforward — and I say on the face of it — we have before us three pages of a separate act with that rather disturbing title: Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act.

I am led to the conclusion, as a member of the opposition, that this really isn't about attacking crime in the province. This is really about assisting the government's image in the province. You don't have to be an advertising executive from Wall Street to recognize a sales pitch when it comes into your home on the TV or in the glossy pages of a magazine nor, indeed, in the plain, white paper of this chamber. What we have before us is a public relations exercise.

[1450]

If we are really serious about this, what is it that this bill is intended to do? What is the point of it? If the point is to assist the police in determining who are the real victims of crime, that's one thing. If the point is to assist the police in determining who caused these people to
[ Page 5113 ]
be victims of crime, then I'm just not sure how this bill, particularly given its wording, is going to significantly advance that cause. That's assuming that is the point of the bill — one or the other.

There may be some other point to this legislation that the Attorney General will disclose during the course of closing debate on second reading or during the course of committee stage of this bill, but what we really have here is a fairly narrow approach, if you will.

We know significantly — and other members, I know, are going to comment on this — that many times the victims of crime are not shot or stabbed. They're strangled, they're beaten, they're struck, they're run down in motor vehicles, or they're blown up in cars. There are all kinds of things that lead to death and injury.

So with this fairly dramatic Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act, again, I am drawn to the conclusion that this is about public relations. I'm even more convinced of that because of what the Attorney General had to say in his opening remarks this afternoon.

If you go to the act itself, it talks about emergency medical assistant means "an emergency medical assistant as defined in the Emergency Health Services Act." I checked that. That doesn't particularly — I don't think in my brief reading of it — include a doctor. The Attorney General went on to speak about doctors and others being covered by their own colleges, etc., as if that could somehow be handled out there.

I guess I have to ask: which is it? If this is a serious matter, if this requires a separate stand-alone piece of legislation and if that's in fact what it requires to address this problem, then why isn't this bill broader? Why doesn't it say that literally every British Columbian who comes into contact with an individual who appears to be the victim of crime — a violent crime, whether that be a gunshot wound or a stab wound or a beating or whatever…? Why isn't there some piece of legislation that says you've got to report it immediately to the authorities? Why are we narrowing it down to emergency medical assistants?

If you look at the definition, for instance, of "health care facility" under the act, it includes "(a) a facility operated by a regional health board designated under the Health Authorities Act, (b) an organization or institution that provides health care services, (c) a clinic that provides health care services, (d) the office of a medical practitioner, or (e) a prescribed facility."

I'm Dr. John Smith practising — I don't know — in Nakusp. I've got an office somewhere down the road, maybe in Nelson or something. Someone comes to my home. I don't think this act catches me, because that's not the office of a medical practitioner. That's my home. So there's a loophole on the face of it, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm just a simple member of this assembly reading this act as best I can and trying to interpret it. That's the way I read it.

Why doesn't it apply to all doctors? It's amusing. If this individual shows up at my house and I'm a doctor and I treat them, there is no requirement under this act that I do any of the things required in section 2. However, it appears, on the simple reading of it, that my office…. If I'm working in a clinic in Nelson, for instance, with two or three other doctors, it appears that the office of the medical practitioner involved has to report it.

I appreciate that there are many members in this chamber who come from the Lower Mainland where you're talking a few miles across town, but there are many practitioners in this province who travel miles and miles to their offices and deal with people who live in hundreds of square miles. Reasonably speaking, I'm not sure I understand how the act, the way it's worded, is really going to assist in a timely — and I presume timely is important here — fashion to have those people identified to the authorities.

If we're talking about crime prevention or crime detection, for instance, how does that work? Why doesn't it say in section 2: "A health care facility, emergency medical assistant, a doctor or any other person who treats a person for gunshot or stab wounds"?

[1455]

I'm in a rural community, and there's a retired nurse living there. That may be the only medical practitioner nearby. I'm in an aboriginal village, isolated. The woman in that village who looks after people who are sick because there's no other health care facility available — why isn't that person required to disclose the information to a police authority?

Why doesn't this bill really address the issue in a meaningful way as opposed to what I suggest, with great respect, is a rather arguably tepid approach? Because if you really want to capture all of the individuals who are victims of crime or use it as a method of detecting those who cause the crime, again, why limit it to gunshot and stab wounds? Why limit it to emergency medical assistants or health care facilities? Are we simply following willy-nilly the other jurisdictions in the country that have passed legislation? Are we trying to do something really meaningful?

Is there a problem, for instance, in the Lower Mainland, where we know gun violence and gang violence is a significant issue? Is it apparent through the authorities? Is there evidence? Is there information? Are there studies? Is there something that says that the existing system isn't working appropriately?

When I say "existing system," I just mean the common sense of medical practitioners who…. If somebody shows up at the door of VGH with three bullet holes in them, it might be incumbent on somebody to phone the police and suggest that there might have been a crime committed, unless of course they're the most negligent hunter in the province of British Columbia and managed to plug themselves three times accidentally, and that's their excuse.
[ Page 5114 ]

Interjection.

L. Krog: Or, as my friend, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast just suggested, they went hunting with Dick Cheney.

Again, I come back to my point about this being a public relations exercise. If we are serious about addressing the issue and attacking crime, then this act doesn't go far enough. I must admit that I'm a little disappointed by the lack of courage, if you will, that is apparent to me in section 2.

This is the guts of the bill, if you will, which, as I suggested earlier, could easily, easily have been included in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, where it says:

"A health care facility or emergency medical assistant who treats a person for a gunshot or stab wound must disclose the following information to the local police authority: (a) the injured person's name, if known; (b) the fact that the injured person is being treated or has been treated for a gunshot or stab wound; (c) in the case of a health care facility, the name and location of the health care facility; (d) in the case of an emergency medical assistant, the location where the treatment occurs" — which wouldn't apply to the doctor in his home or her home — "(e) any other information required by the regulations."

Here we go again. The good old regulations. We haven't quite got the courage to put what we really want to do in the bill. We're going to deal with it in regulations.

I don't think there's a British Columbian who's literate who could read this section and not come to the conclusion: "Well, gosh, if you're asking for the injured person's name and we're interested in stopping crime or preventing crime, why doesn't it say that they have to disclose the person's address and occupation and place of work or medical history?"

I mean, maybe this is the fifth or sixth time poor George has been in VGH with some untimely bullet holes. I suggest that it's because…. Well, there are several explanations. This bill was hastily drawn in order to combat the government's declining popularity and its lack of ability to demonstrate that it's really committed to fighting violent crime in British Columbia. Or it's because they lack the courage to say to those of us who are concerned about privacy….

They're afraid to state right in the body of the bill the things I just suggested: the person's address, the person's occupation, the person's medical history, any other relevant facts that would assist the police authorities in dealing with what — on the face of it, if it's a gunshot or stab wound — would be a criminal act.

[1500]

It talks about local police authority. The whole concept of this bill is to get the information before a local police authority. If that's the case, and we're designing this bill to assist the police authorities, then why aren't the requirements set out in section 2(1) much more extensive? Why are we leaving it to regulation? That's my question.

If this is what it's really designed to do, if it's designed to be a sincere and serious attempt by this government to address crime, where is it? I mean, I don't see it. With great respect, "the injured person's name, if known…." Now, there may not be a lot of Leonard Krogs in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

L. Krog: I know the government benches want more, but I would suggest that there may be a number of John Smiths. There may be a number of William Smiths. There may even be a couple of Spencer Chandra Herberts. I don't know.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, you do know that is not appropriate. Your name and his name — withdraw.

L. Krog: Sorry. Yes, you're quite right, hon. Speaker. I withdraw that.

An Hon. Member: Apologize, too.

L. Krog: And I apologize.

But my point is this. The mere identification of a person's name in and of itself may provide precious little, if any, assistance whatsoever to the police.

I come back to my point about this bill. Is this going to advance the cause of fighting crime at all? Even more interestingly, hon. Speaker, if you go to section 6, it says specifically: "Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act or the regulations."

Now, if it were to apply and someone breached the act by failing to contact the police authorities, they could be convicted of a general offence and fined up to $2,000 or six months imprisonment. In other words, there would be some real meat here. There would be an opportunity, if you will, for a person to seriously consider whether they wanted to, for instance, fail to comply with the provisions of this act. Right now, on the face of it, what's it going to do?

I presume there will be some provision in the latest collective agreement that will say that if Bob is working in the emergency room at VGH and provides some assistance, under the collective agreement that governs Bob's workplace Bob will have to comply with all provincial statutes, which means that indirectly he will have to in fact provide this kind of disclosure. If not, he will be subject to discipline or a letter of reprimand in his file or whatever. But there will be something.

If you are someone working in a medical practitioner's office and you're not covered by a collective agreement, then what's the sanction? What is it? Is it because you work for a highly ethical physician who is going to insist that if you don't do this…? Or are they going to have a contract of employment drawn that says you have to comply with all provincial statutes, and if you don't,
[ Page 5115 ]
you're subject to being fined or demoted or dismissed or put on unpaid leave for a few days?

It even goes so far as to say, in section 5:

"Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against (a) a health care facility, (b) a director, officer or employee of a health care facility, (c) an emergency medical assistant, or (d) any other person acting under the authority…because of anything done or omitted in the performance or intended performance of any duty under this Act."

In other words, you can't even be sued civilly. It's not just that there is not a penalty; you can't be sued civilly. It sounds like the worst you'll get…. Well, you won't even get your wrist slapped, hon. Speaker, because that's not provided for in the bill either.

Now, it says: "Subsection (1) does not apply to a person referred to in that subsection in relation to anything done or omitted by that person in bad faith." I take it to read that if you're doing it in good faith and think you're doing the right thing or you're really, really stupid and don't realize the three bullet holes in George might be related to a criminal act, then it's okay. I won't call it a "get out of jail free" card, but you get to pass the courthouse and not be sued.

[1505]

What we're left with, when I look through this bill, is the government's attempt, obvious as it is, to try and portray themselves as being really concerned about crime in British Columbia, really working hard to ensure that those who are either victims of or perpetrators of crimes get reported to the appropriate authorities and that they're dealt with.

Now, hon. Speaker, I've got to tell you that when it takes nearly ten months to appoint a chief Provincial Court judge — and that's the court that deals with most of the criminal matters in the province of British Columbia — I don't get the sense that this government's interest in crime is that high. It's not terribly high on the government's agenda, because if this is the government's attempt at proving and showing that it's seriously concerned about crime in British Columbia, I don't see where it cuts it. I don't see where it works for British Columbians. I don't see that this is good public policy.

Why should we place a burden, if you will, to be a good citizen, arguably, on only those who are defined as emergency medical assistants or health care facilities? Why not place it on all of us?

I'm sure everyone in this chamber went through a school, got through a public school perhaps or a private school, and understood what it was to be the rat fink in the class — you know, the one who went to the teacher and told on somebody. It's not a popular thing to do. But you know, it's that culture of not telling that probably helps promote bullying in our province too, and that's not a good thing. So if this is a good thing for us to report to the police authorities, to local police authorities as defined in this bill…. If it's a good thing to do that, why does it only apply to emergency medical assistants?

Why do we exclude those at the top of the chain of medical treatment, if you will — doctors? Why are we relying on the college to have appropriate rules to deal with this? Why aren't we imposing what is really a statement of good intention, at best, only on a limited segment of our society?

I acknowledge that it's a segment of society that, arguably, logically is most likely to come into contact with people who have been the victims of gunshot or stab wounds. But as I said, there are a number of easy examples that spring to mind, which I've already outlined today — the healer in the aboriginal village, the doctor in their private dwelling far from their medical clinic, the retired nurse in some out-of-the-way community who actually has some medical abilities.

There are a whole range of people who one could see would be providing medical treatment, the way all of us commonly understand it, who are not going to be covered by this "Oh, go and do the right thing" bill — this statement of good intentions, this requirement that you do something, this "Oh, by the way, you can't be sued, and there's no offence if you don't comply" act. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If the government is really, really serious about ensuring that every victim of crime and those who perpetrate those crimes, those people who suffer violence and injury…. If the government is really concerned about that, then the government needs to step up to the plate and impose this duty on all of us.

I think there's a general duty for all of us to report an incident of child abuse if we become aware of it. It's the law of the province of British Columbia, and if I'm correct it's been the law of the province of British Columbia for a very, very long time.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that it isn't breached by many people on a daily basis — the neighbour on one side who doesn't quite have the courage to go to the authorities and report that they hear crying from small children in the house next door more often than they should.

[1510]

But it is a statement, if you will, of our values that those who are vulnerable should be protected, that they should have the opportunity to be saved from further victimization and violence.

Again, this act doesn't do that. This act doesn't impose the duty on all British Columbians. It imposes it, yes, on a significant section of the population, who will presumably be dealing with victims of gunshot and stabbing, but it doesn't impose it on a larger cross-section of health care workers. It doesn't impose it on every British Columbian.

Even then, it doesn't begin to address what we know statistically — include all the other ways of committing violence. I mean, in theory under this bill, in good
[ Page 5116 ]
conscience, arguably, technically you can take into an emergency facility someone who has been beaten within an inch of their life by a baseball bat, and you don't have to report it under the tenor of this bill. Someone who has been strangled to the point of death doesn't have to be reported.

But anyone who has a gunshot or stab wound, which is less likely — indeed, it doesn't even meet the majority of cases — is less likely to die from that than in the other methods I've talked about. That person, that victim, that person's name — not their address, not all the other relevant information to help the police — is going to be disclosed.

Again, you ask yourself: what's the point of this? Why are we doing this? Indeed, the regulation section of the bill provides, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: (a) prescribing a wound for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of "stab wound…." I don't know. Presumably it's got to be more than an inch deep and more than a half an inch wide or whatever.

It's got to define terms that are used but not defined in this act. Again, we don't get to determine that in this Legislature. We don't get to hear it. It gets to prescribe the facilities or classes of facilities. It gets to prescribe information that must be disclosed.

Again, I come back to my point. The government doesn't have what I will say is the courage of its convictions, if you will, to specify the kinds of information that I've talked about in my remarks under section 2, which would really assist the police — other than simply a person's name and where the treatment occurred. They don't have the courage to put that in the body of the bill, but presumably that may be dealt with under regulation.

It can prescribe the "person or class of persons responsible for making disclosure on behalf of a health care facility." God forbid that the person who is supposed to make the disclosure isn't on shift that night. That will have to wait till the next morning, and I'm sure that will assist the police in the execution of their difficult duties.

In addition, notwithstanding that we've already got this narrow class, the bill itself allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — thank God, for a change it's not just the minister; it's the actual Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; it is cabinet this time — to make regulations "exempting persons or classes of persons from the requirements of this Act."

The bill only applies to a limited number of persons. Then in addition, even though it's a limited number of people, the very bill itself, section 7(g), allows you to exempt some of those people. In addition, it allows you to exempt certain facilities or classes of facilities.

I don't know. Are we going to exempt the doctors' offices in Surrey and keep in the doctors' offices in Kamloops? Are we going to exempt the hospitals on Vancouver Island, because we're all retired and peaceable over here, and not exempt the hospitals and health care facilities in the city of Vancouver? I mean, what exactly are we doing with this, hon. Speaker?

[1515]

Moreover, there's also a civil liberties issue here. The Attorney General may suggest, I'm sure, at some point during the course of speaking to this matter that I'm trying to play both sides of the street on this. Well, that's the opposition's job.

So we have the B.C. Civil Liberties Association who have expressed concern that "trying to mandate health care providers as some agent of national security or domestic security is profoundly misguided." You have to consider, in an age where privacy is important, the views of those who would oppose this bill.

I don't oppose the concept of catching the bad guys, and no one on this side or that side of the House does. If this were a sincere attempt to do so, I'd be pounding my desk over here. But everything I have read and everything I have tried to point out during the course of second reading debate in this bill tells me that it is an absolutely inadequate approach if one really wants to tackle this head-on.

It may be a tepid first step. It may encourage a culture of disclosure where crime is observed, but it doesn't really do the kind of job that I think the public, hearing this rather gruesome title, would expect it to do. It is not going to advance public safety or assist in catching the bad guys in the way it was intended to do.

I look forward to the committee stage of this bill and the opportunity to question the Solicitor General, in his capacity, as to why this is really going to advance the cause of public safety in British Columbia. From what I see in this bill, I don't see it. I'd love to be convinced, but I don't think it's there.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Peace River North seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

P. Pimm: Today in the precinct we have a group of students, grades 9 to 12, from Christian Life School in my riding of Peace River North. These students are accompanied by their teachers, their principal and some parents — Tami LeClerc, Mary March, Don Irwin and Trish Brousson. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

Debate Continued

N. Simons: It's my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill 12, the Gunshot and
[ Page 5117 ]
Stab Wound Disclosure Act. While we are supportive of this bill, there are obviously responsibilities in opposition to point out, perhaps some shortfalls or ways it can be improved, and I'm pleased to do that. In addition, I believe it's our responsibility to ascertain the full reason for the introduction of this legislation. I think that is where I have some questions.

Having worked in the area of child protection and social services, in my job I ran across people who had been injured and were hesitant to seek help because of the fear of consequences from their partner. In those situations I have always been able to encourage them that their reporting and discussion with their doctor has been one of confidentiality. It is in a supportive environment. There are some concerns that I have around this bill with respect to that, the required reporting.

The vast majority of gang violence does not involve guns or stabbings, knives. They involve beatings. In fact, approximately 60 percent of gang violence involves beatings. I'm curious as to whether or not this is just a statement to make it appear that government is tough on crime.

[1520]

We also know there's a direct connection between the proliferation of gang violence and the continued policy of prohibition. I think we need to make sure that we look at underlying causes. It's our responsibility as legislators to do so.

Neil Boyd, the eminent professor of criminology at Simon Fraser University, points out that prohibition hands responsibility for product quality and price of drugs to gangs and guarantees them a lucrative business. In fact, violent crime is often a result of the high stakes involved in the activities of gang violence. I'm hoping that this marks the beginning of a sincere attempt to address the underlying causes of crime, including gang violence.

The Solicitor General, in his published comments, suggested that any reasonable person would expect that reports of violence or obvious injuries resulting from a criminal activity would be reported. So that sort of leads me to wonder whether there has been a problem with doctors not reporting. Is this a statement about the failure of the medical profession to act in accordance with what we obviously expect reasonable people to do? That concerns me.

I believe that most professionals are interested in protecting the public interest in any way. Perhaps the removal of liability is necessary. I do think that further discussion we can engage in, in committee stage will perhaps answer some of these questions, and I'm looking forward to that opportunity in committee stage. But overall, I believe it's sort of hard to say that it's a bad idea that crime gets reported when it's witnessed or when evidence of its existence has been witnessed. For that reason, I will be supporting this bill.

I believe there are some serious problems with it in terms of the impact on people seeking medical help when it changes the relationship between that patient and their doctor. I think that's something that needs to be addressed. That fundamentally is one of the issues that I'm hoping to canvass the minister on — any sort of research that they've done which would have been, of course, part of due diligence to assess whether or not this would have a negative impact on people seeking help for injuries they've sustained, however they've sustained them.

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to bring up these few points, and I cede my place to the next speaker.

V. Huntington: It's interesting to find out that we have a bit of a system here whereby the lone independent walks in and finds out we're not in committee stage for Bill 11. So my remarks are going to be very short and to the point as a result, regarding Bill 12, the Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act.

I think this is, for me at any rate, a classic example of the incredible influence of U.S. entertainment media. I thought that this legislation had been in place all along and found myself bowled over to find that it wasn't and that we did not have this protection for the public in place already. I can't imagine why it's taken so long, given the acute gang violence we've been experiencing especially in the Lower Mainland, and I welcome the bill as such.

I do, however, share the concerns of the member for Nanaimo with regard to the definition section, specifically part (d), "the office of a medical practitioner." In committee stage I would be very pleased to hear the Attorney describe why his department feels that confining the definition to "medical practitioner" rather than "the office of" would not be a safer way to go throughout the province.

[1525]

I think if we even go back to those U.S. movies and entertainment, there is no assurance that there isn't a Dr. Bad Guy out there. There's no assurance that threats or money or the proverbial knock on the door at midnight can't influence a medical practitioner to undertake work on a gunshot or stab wound, and I think that is a major flaw within the act. I think that issue should be covered, and I think the time to do it is probably now rather than later, when we find that there is a problem.

My other concern is that there are other medically trained professionals out there, such as veterinarians, who are fully capable of assisting in these situations. I don't believe the act contemplates protection of the public in those instances.

I would welcome comments in committee on those two issues and hope that the Attorney can see his way to looking at those flaws in the act and perhaps amending them before we pass it.
[ Page 5118 ]

H. Bains: I'm also standing here to throw my support behind Bill 12, called Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act. But I will be very cautious in my approach because the history of this government is that they do come up with very catchphrase kinds of announcements with very little action to back them up.

I want to say this. For the last ten or 15 years communities, especially in the Lower Mainland, have been crying out for help to stop gang wars and drug-related crimes in their neighbourhoods. This government didn't lift a finger in order to curb what was going on in the streets around their neighbourhoods. No wonder the Lower Mainland was described as the gang capital of Canada.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I mean, that statement on its own is embarrassing to us as British Columbians. I think it also puts fear in those men and women, parents who actually are out there working hard trying to raise their families and raise their children, not knowing what is going on in schools.

This bill talks about dealing with an issue or crime after the fact. It means that the crime has already occurred. Someone has been stabbed or has been shot. Now, yes, there will be a responsibility for those people who are working in those facilities to report such wounds to the authorities.

Where is there in this bill anything to do with prevention? When I'm talking about our communities, the South Asian community itself has been asking this government for the last ten or 15 years to do something so that their children are safe in high schools. What resources is this government prepared to give to the local authorities so that their children are not targeted in high schools by those drug dealers who want to recruit those children from high schools? There's hardly anything in that area.

Prevention is what will take those kids from moving from being good children in schools and getting their education into the world of gangs and drugs. There's nothing in there to deal with that issue. As I said, this government has been known to make all those very catchy announcements but hardly any actions behind them. I hope this bill will go partway in dealing with some of the issues that our communities are facing.

I will let you know, Madam Speaker, that I was speaking to Surrey RCMP, and they're concerned about what's going on in Surrey. I looked at some of the statistics that were brought down by Statistics Canada. Surrey has one of the lowest ratios of police officers on a per-capita basis of all the major cities in Canada. Why is that? How could they do a job in a community that is growing at such a fast pace and is going to be the largest city in British Columbia in the next ten or 15 years? Those are some of the concerns.

[1530]

I do have a concern that we should not ignore from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. They do have a concern listed that it may discourage people, those victims of crime, from going and seeking treatment in those facilities where they know that such wounds, or that the crime, will be reported to the police. They may try to hide it by not going to these facilities. Those are some of the concerns that I had.

I would like to see this government taking real action in prevention — prevention of a drug war that is going on and the gang wars that are going on in the Lower Mainland. There's hardly anything in this bill.

If this government was serious about dealing with gangs and drug violence in the Lower Mainland, they would be coming down with a bill that would actually talk about prevention and having resources put in place so that they can actually go in there and interfere with the recruitment of young men and women that these folks like to bring on board.

There are all kinds of questions that the people here, the members here before me, have brought out. They have some concerns. I'm sure that at the committee stage, those questions will be asked, and hopefully, we will get some of the answers.

All in all, I do support this bill, but those are my cautions and concerns that I have about this government: whether they will walk the talk or they will continue to do what they've been doing in the past nine years that I've watched them — make all kinds of statements but don't back them up with any actions.

With that, I will take my place. Hopefully, we will find some answers to those concerns that we have raised.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the members who participated through their comments in the debate today — the opposition House Leader and the members for Nanaimo, Powell River–Sunshine Coast, Delta North and Surrey-Newton — I'll just take a moment. To the extent that I could discern any sort of theme to the comments that were made, I should say this.

Although the member for Nanaimo and I frequently disagree in this chamber, I'm not reluctant to admit that there are days he presents a coherent argument or point of view. Sometimes it's not one I share, but it is coherent and represents a logical thought process. Sadly, today was not one of those days, in my view.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Look, I think the search for legislative perfection, perhaps, carries on in vain, but I have difficulty. First of all, I have difficulty reconciling what the member for Nanaimo said with what the opposition House Leader
[ Page 5119 ]
said. I think the opposition House Leader characterized some issues that derive from this piece of legislation, and that's fair enough. There are some questions that emerge.

I don't know, based on what the member for Nanaimo said, how he could vote for this bill. There appears nothing worthy of support. The very motive is in doubt in his mind. In the same address to this chamber, he argued for extending the obligation to everyone in the province and in the next breath argued that it should accrue to no one in the province, speaking to the concerns of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

I think there is a role for presenting concerns. I think there is a responsibility for developing some measure of coherence to that and actually revealing during the course of debate what it is the member believes constitutes an appropriate balance, because this is about striking a balance.

[1535]

A couple of the members, I think, seized upon something the member for Nanaimo repeated a number of times in his remarks, when he talked about the obligation for individuals. Now, this may have been one of his criticisms. I'm not entirely sure. But, of course, the legal obligation does not accrue to individuals under the provisions of this proposed statute. It accrues to health care facilities as defined in the act. There are pros, and there are cons to doing that, but it is important to recognize that that is done so purposely and with a particular approach in mind.

The phenomenon that has occurred — and I think the members, all of them, know this — is that when dealing with gang-related activity and gangsters, people engage in gunplay, they get shot, and they show up at the hospital. They want to get patched up and sent on their way, and they don't want to talk to anyone.

Yes, there are other circumstances where violence occurs. There's no doubt about that. But there is a particular phenomenon that has been taking place where people are driving around or walking around, armed to the teeth, getting involved in gunfights. Then when it turns out badly for them, they want to go into a health care facility, get patched up and be on their way and not talk to anyone about it.

There has been uncertainty on the part of those facilities and the people that work in them about what their obligations are. Yes, there have been protocols. I think the member for Delta South talked about her surprise that this law was needed at all. There have been protocols, but this will create for those people that work in those health care facilities some additional measure of certainty about what they are able to do and ensure that they are not exposed to some additional liability.

I know that we will have an opportunity to canvass some of the issues that were raised. Some of them are more legitimate than others. I think that, unfortunately, we're at a point where some members of the opposition are looking to present issues or manufacture issues that aren't there, but some of them are legitimate issues that deserve to be addressed. The opposition House Leader raised some of them in his remarks.

I suppose that during the course of that discussion, we will determine whether the bill is, as was described by one member, on balance a good piece of legislation or, as by the member for Nanaimo and one of his colleagues, hardly worthy of consideration or support.

The last thing that I might talk about…. I thought I heard an invitation from the member for Nanaimo to include a provision like this in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. That may not have been his intention. It may also not be possible when we're not actually amending any other statutes. So it's an interesting approach to the notion of statutory construction. I've noted it, and I'm certain that the next time an opportunity presents itself, I will be able to turn my mind to that question.

However, the purpose is not to delay debate; it is to move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill 16, Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act.

[1540]

Bill 16 — Armoured Vehicle and
After-Market Compartment
Control Act

Hon. M. de Jong: Armoured vehicles, armoured cars…. I thought an armoured car was something that companies like Loomis or Pinkerton drove, and they took valuables and cash from banks to other security instruments of value around town in secure circumstances.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

As it turns out, there is a developing, emerging phenomenon where people — particularly, it seems, those engaged in criminal activity — have decided that as a way to enhance their own feelings of invincibility, they will purchase vehicles and have them altered and have armoured plating attached to them and in effect create a form of civilian tank — a tank on the road that they
[ Page 5120 ]
can drive around. If they become involved in violence, gunfights or that sort of thing or are confronted by other elements, criminal elements with whom they have disputes, they will feel better protected.

It gives these people a sense of invincibility. It seems clear that it is influencing their behaviour and, as a result, putting the vast majority of law-abiding citizens at risk in the process.

We have Bill 16, which addresses this phenomenon of gangs and gang members modifying ordinary vehicles and inserting armoured plating into the doors and replacing the windshields with bulletproof glass. They've done something else that is reflected in, I think, section 7 of the bill, which I'm sure we will have a chance to discuss. Again, in trying to seek an appropriate statutory balance, there are decisions that have to be made about drafting. That is this notion of installing, after the purchase of a vehicle, secret compartments where they can hide guns and hide illicit materials like drugs.

I should say that if this were simply a case of removing a panel and having a place to hide something…. I'm told by police that this is getting elaborate in almost a James Bond–ish sort of way. You turn on the radio, you push a button, you slip it into a particular gear, and a particular panel either moves or disappears, and you have access to a very well concealed compartment where gang members can put guns, drugs and cash.

The government has decided to try and address this, recognizing of course the challenges associated with striking an appropriate balance and understanding who the target of this is. A few other provinces have done this. Alberta is one of them, and they've passed some highway safety regulations that allow the police to seize vehicles which they suspect have been outfitted with armoured plating and bulletproof glass.

Manitoba has also done two things, one of which we've already done around body armour. The second now combines it with fortified vehicles, armoured vehicles. They, too, are addressing this phenomenon that we see on the part of the criminal element where they are going to extraordinary lengths to try and protect themselves from the very violence they seem content to inflict on others.

This bill will create an offence for operating an armoured vehicle unless the operator is exempted by regulations. I've already mentioned some obvious exemptions — armoured vehicles for law enforcement purposes or licensed security companies.

[1545]

It may be possible, as well, that you may have a celebrity of one sort or another who seeks additional protection, but the operator would have to be registered and permitted. This does focus very much on the operator. Anyone other than those law enforcement or licensed security exemptions will have to apply for a permit from the registrar of security services under the Security Services Act. The permitting policy and procedures will be similar to those that have already been implemented with respect to the Body Armour Control Act.

Personal protection, I can advise the House, will be the key criteria in deciding whether a person should be permitted. The registrar, I can advise the House, will conduct background checks on applicants and will determine their suitability for a permit, and that will be work undertaken by the registrar.

This legislation, Bill 16, will permit the registrar to refuse to issue or renew a permit to a person seeking to use an armoured vehicle in a number of circumstances: if the applicant has failed to comply with application provisions, fails to demonstrate a need to operate an armoured vehicle or contravenes the act or regulations. A permit can also be refused if the registrar considers that the applicant's or licensee's conduct or character makes it undesirable that he or she should operate an armoured vehicle, and those are also reasons that can be utilized by the registrar to cancel or suspend a permit.

There is an element of discretionary authority involved here that is vested in the registrar, and I suspect that during the course of the committee stage debate, we will have a bit of a discussion about the manner in which the government believes that that discretionary authority will be exercised.

Drivers of an armoured vehicle will have to possess their permit at all times, and if they don't, they risk having their vehicle impounded or seized. They'll have to be in a position to demonstrate immediately that they are properly authorized to operate the armoured vehicle.

Under the bill, if it becomes law, it will be an offence to own, operate or use a vehicle which has what I called earlier a secret compartment. I think the term used under the act is an "after-market secret compartment." The notion there is that there would be very few legitimate reasons for requiring the kind of after-market compartment that this act is designed to outlaw. There will, however, be a provision by which exemptions can be provided, and that authorization will exist in the regulatory enabling section of the bill.

This legislation will allow the police to seize armoured vehicles that are operated by persons without a valid permit and also to seize vehicles that they have reason to believe may contain a hidden after-market compartment. If the police determine they have seized one of these vehicles which has been used for criminal purposes, under the Civil Forfeiture Act…. They may choose to refer the investigative file to that office, the Civil Forfeiture Act, after having confirmed what the Crown's intentions are in terms of the overall investigation.

I should advise the House that the bill we are debating has the support of the police community. The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution in June of last year calling on the province to take legislative
[ Page 5121 ]
action against armoured vehicles used by gang members, and we have been guided by that request in the development of this legislation.

More recently, police officers in charge of gang and organized crime units have recommended that action be taken specifically to address this phenomenon of the secret compartment, or secret after-market compartment, as they are apparently encountering these more and more often, and they are getting more and more elaborate.

[1550]

Given the discussion we have just had, I will end my contribution to the debate at this stage by making the following points or offering the following acknowledgments. This is about trying to find an appropriate balance and recognizing that in the course of so doing, the vast, vast majority of the citizens in this province go about their business lawfully, in accordance with the law, and deserve to have that recognized and have rights vis-à-vis the state.

What we are trying to do is create some additional tools, investigative tools that the police and our investigating authorities can put to work to curtail and address behaviour that is not acceptable by any standard or by any measurement

That is specifically people who have chosen or allowed themselves to become seduced into a lifestyle of violence and criminal activity and, having made that choice, think nothing of inflicting violence and suffering on others, oftentimes innocent bystanders, but wish to protect themselves from violence and make themselves feel invincible to that violence through the installation of armour, body armour or, in this case, armoured plating in vehicles.

That is not behaviour that the government believes is appropriate, and we want to arm the police, pardon the pun, with additional tools to root it out, make it unlawful and take these vehicles off the street except when they are being operated in accordance with a strict legal regime and the exceptions noted here.

I'll look forward to the comments from other members addressing this particular provision. Those are my initial comments on second reading, and in the process I move second reading of the bill.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 16. This is a bill that would deal with the issue of armoured cars and illegal concealed compartments in cars after-market, as the Attorney General described them.

The Attorney General stated that the vast majority of British Columbians who operate motor vehicles in this province do so legally and within the framework of the Motor Vehicle Act and operate them responsibly, and that's absolutely correct.

The trouble is that we have a minority, a small minority, and let's call them what they are. They are thugs, gangsters who use the ability to armour-plate a vehicle, to put in place hidden compartments to intimidate people, to intimidate other thugs, other gangsters and to intimidate the public, particularly in areas….

You see it downtown, in club areas, for example. You see it in other parts of the Lower Mainland. It is a deliberate way to try and conduct their activity and to intimidate people, and that's not right. We cannot stand by and let that happen. That's why we need this particular piece of legislation.

The government first made this announcement…. My criticism here will be similar to the last bill, which was well over a year ago. My question becomes: why has it taken so long to get this on the table? It strikes me as a relatively straightforward piece of legislation, particularly when a lot of it is being done by regulation and the powers will be done in cabinet. Nevertheless, it's here. It's a piece of legislation that we will be supporting.

I think nothing infuriates the public more than the idea of individuals deliberately trying to flout the law, to do something to a vehicle that will somehow encourage or allow violent activity to not only continue but to escalate, and that is exactly what is happening.

[1555]

It starts out trying to put in tinted glass, so you can't see what's in there. Then it becomes going to bulletproof glass. Then it becomes going to armour plating. Then it becomes modifying engines. Then it becomes modifying the vehicle further.

There has been a growth in a black market, underground industry around remodelling and revamping these types of vehicles — frequently high-value SUVs, Escalades for example — so that they are impenetrable to bullets. They give these thugs, these gangsters, a sense of invincibility and the ability to sort of carry on unimpeded and with a complete lack of respect for law-abiding society or law enforcement or any of the rules and the moral and ethical codes of conduct that 99.9 percent of the people of British Columbia live by. And that's not acceptable.

This piece of legislation deals with that. The Attorney General has laid out some exceptions, where people have a legitimate permit. He said that there will be some exemptions. Those are areas that we want to explore in the committee stage to see exactly what form those exemptions take, how the regulations will be developed, what type of consultation has taken place.

But it's our view that those regulations should be narrow in scope. The exemptions should be narrow and focused and very specific. The ability for discretion, I think, should be narrow and not broad. When you start to think about it, you have legitimate security companies. They take a specific type of vehicle. You see them — for example, Brink's armoured vehicles, things like that. That's pretty straightforward.

If it's a visiting head of state, for example, we have a national security service that comes into play and has
[ Page 5122 ]
vehicles that are suitable for the protection of visiting heads of state and visiting dignitaries.

When it comes to VIPs, again, I think the question has to be: what's going on here? My idea is not that this should be used so some visiting rap star from LA seems to think that because they're some, you know, "very important person," they should be able to get a licence to have some armour-plated vehicle as more of a status symbol than something that actually and accurately reflects the security needs of an individual — for example, if there is a real, police-determined threat.

Driving a car and a vehicle is a privilege; it's not a right. Likewise, driving around in an armour-plated vehicle with bulletproof glass and hidden compartments is not a right in this country or this province.

One of the things that we often forget is the unintended consequences when these types of vehicles are on the street. You know, during the process of revamping one of these vehicles the weight of the vehicle changes significantly. When you have quarter-inch armour plating or half-inch armour plating on a vehicle, the weight on that vehicle changes substantially. The results of that weight change….

If a vehicle like that is going through an intersection, for example, and is involved in an accident, it can be catastrophic for the vehicle that it is in collision with. What may be a terrible accident of an SUV plowing into another vehicle will be magnified ten-fold by an armour-plated vehicle crashing through an intersection into another vehicle.

[1600]

That alone, I think, is reason enough to regulate it. But the fact that they are driven by thugs, gangsters whose sole purpose for this is to intimidate other gangsters and the public, I think, is without doubt one of the prime reasons to pass this particular piece of legislation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Attorney General makes, I think, a really sound point on how sophisticated the issue has become in terms of the panels and the ability to hide the secret panels. I think that speaks to exactly what the nature of the problem is. It's not a case of having just a secret compartment that's under the dashboard, where something can be hidden. No, this is an exercise in looking at every possible, conceivable way in which you can stay one step ahead of law enforcement, stay one step ahead of the ability to detect what's in there, to use whatever technology is available to hide weapons, to hide contraband, to hide ill-gotten cash — and, hon. Speaker, that's just not right. It's just wrong.

If this legislation provides — which I believe it will do — another strong tool to police departments throughout this province to deal with this issue, then I say yes, and this side of the House says yes. It's the same as when we dealt with the issue around body armour. You know, the police are the ones who should be wearing body armour. Legitimate security guards should be wearing body armour, not gangster thugs. Likewise, with vehicles it should be police vehicles that have bulletproof glass, not vehicles driven by gangsters.

One of the sections that I have some questions about, and that I want to deal with in committee stage…. That's on some comments that the Attorney General said about the vehicles. If it's determined that a vehicle has been engaged in crime, civil forfeiture will come into play, and I think that's a good thing. But if one of these vehicles is found, I don't want it just impounded. I want it destroyed and off the street. In Ontario they're crushed. I do not want to see a situation where a vehicle is taken off the street, only to turn around and end up back on the street.

It may not be armoured. It may have a compartment. But I want it off the street and out of commission, so that nobody else can come along and buy it. I want to make sure that that is not a flaw in this particular piece of legislation.

I want to make sure that when we deal with this — and I understand that parts of it are through regulation — the Attorney General hears loud and clear from the opposition and, hopefully, from government members and that we don't have a situation where these types of vehicles somehow end up on the street. They should not. They should be off the street. If they're used in criminal activity, they should be destroyed, crushed, however you want to do it — plain and simple.

You know, this is a piece of legislation that is worthy of examination in committee stage to make sure that we've got all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed, to make sure that we fully understand some of the key issues in the main sections, such as what regulations will be in place to refuse an armoured vehicle permit. In the cancellation or the suspension process, what happens when an armoured vehicle, or one containing an after-market compartment without authorization, is seized? How is that dealt with?

The other final question I have is some thinking on the rationalization about the time limit for commencing a prosecution: one year after the date of the alleged offence. I'm wondering: is that in fact long enough? Is there a reason why it could not be two years or three years if, in the case of an investigation, something comes to light? Anyway, those are questions for committee stage.

[1605]

The bottom line is that the opposition supports this piece of legislation. We think it's a good opportunity to implement an important tool for the police in terms of their fight against crime, gang violence and the thugs who would intimidate law-abiding British Columbians. So I look forward to comments that other colleagues of
[ Page 5123 ]
mine have on this particular piece of legislation because I can tell you, as I said earlier, the police should have armoured vehicles — not gangsters.

So with that, I take my place and look forward to the comments of colleagues in the House.

L. Krog: I'm always delighted to rise in the chamber and make a few comments about any bill that's introduced by the busiest person in the Legislature: the Government House Leader, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. I'm always inspired by his temperate remarks and his kindness. I think it only appropriate to stand and recognize that this legislation, as was pointed out by the Opposition House Leader, is long overdue.

We have seen violent crime increase in our province, particularly in gang violence in the Lower Mainland. Speaking as a member for a community that includes what I hope will soon be the former home of a Hell's Angels chapter, I say that it's time to go after, in a very direct way, those who are flouting the law, who are endangering our citizens, endangering those who work in our police forces, who put their lives on the line every day, and doing that with the assistance of willing folks who think it's appropriate to doctor, if you will, vehicles to ensure that illicit drugs can be kept from public view, that dangerous weapons can be kept from public view and that they can continue to pursue a life of crime, often around the issue of drug dealing.

I think it goes without saying that there is not a member in this House who hasn't had in their constituency offices individuals whose lives have been ruined through the abuse of drugs. The prevalence and availability of those drugs is certainly due to a public demand, and I acknowledge that, but the criminal organizations that are responsible for the distribution of those drugs are the kinds of people who require armoured vehicles to protect themselves, who require secret compartments in order to hide ill-gotten gains — the proceeds of crimes and dangerous weapons. So this is a step forward.

I suppose my only question is that given what the Solicitor General in that capacity had to say earlier about my remarks about the Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act…. I'm surprised this wasn't part of a larger crime omnibus bill, if you will. Put it all together. Give the opportunity for government to showcase its commitment to fighting crime in the province. I think that might have well saved the time debating two separate pieces of legislation.

But that aside, this bill, subject to what may be disclosed during the course of what I'm sure will be a vigorous committee stage, is a step forward in attacking those individuals who have put fear into hearts, particularly those of our fellow British Columbians who live in the Lower Mainland. So this bill will certainly have my support.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to rise to offer my support for this legislation. Certainly, in the West End, my constituency, we are aware of what some of these armoured vehicles may look like, certainly enjoy coming down Robson Street, down Denman, back up Davie Street. I'm not referring, of course, to the party buses that come by with teenagers having a wild time, but more so the large, sometimes seemingly stretch, SUVs and things like that.

I think it's about time that we did this, long past overdue, because really, should we continue to stand for vehicles which are stronger than what the police might be able to have? Certainly, friends of mine work with the police — are police, in fact — and some of the stories I hear from them about, kind of, the disproportionate crime-fighting situations they might have to go into brings me great concern.

[1610]

We need to be doing whatever we can to ensure that it is our police who are leading the way, not the gangsters or goons or thugs or whatever you might want to call them — people involved in criminal activities. So I look forward to seeing this legislation come to pass. Hopefully, it will reduce some of the tours of duty that people seem to feel they need to make through my constituency on the way to other actions, other crimes, as the case may be.

It seems to be a badge of honour that you have to drive down Robson Street with your speaker booming out loud to show off to the world, then down Denman and up Davie. Maybe, just maybe, this legislation will help us reduce the size of some of those vehicles. Though, of course, the loud music and the need to do that rite of passage will probably not be put away because of this legislation, since most of those people are not criminals in that sense, maybe just criminals of poor taste. My neighbours might want us to criminalize them, but that will not happen with this legislation.

So I thank the Attorney General, Solicitor General and House Leader for bringing this legislation in. I would think that maybe the Trojans would have wished this legislation was in place back in their time so that they could keep a Trojan Horse from entering their community. Certainly, it was a hidden compartment which held the weapons who did the Trojans — not the Trojans…. I'm confusing the story. The Trojan Horse is, of course, what I'm referring to.

So thank you to the minister for bringing this bill forward, and it has my support.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm obliged to the members who contributed to the debate, gratified to learn of what appears to be widespread support for the measure in the
[ Page 5124 ]
House and keenly looking forward to the discussion that will take place around individual parts of the bill at the committee stage, and with that, move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16, Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage of Bill 11, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2).

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 11 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 4:15 p.m.

On section 1.

B. Simpson: This portion of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is amending the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act. There are a number of different flavours or themes to these amendments that I would like the opportunity to explore today.

On section 1, which changes the kind of substance and overall intent of the act…. Before we get into the details of that, I'd like to ask the minister, from his perspective, what the stimulus is for these amendments. What's the backdrop for making these changes, and how was it brought to the minister's attention that the changes needed to be made?

Hon. G. Abbott: All of the changes, all of the amendments that are proposed here, are the product of an extensive consultation which the council itself undertook with First Nations across the province of British Columbia. They spent many months in the process of consultation, putting together recommendations for government, which now have been adopted through the amendments in this bill. So these are all amendments which are produced as a consequence of direction from First Nations rather than a government initiative.

B. Simpson: My understanding from the reading of the act is that there's the corporate entity, which is the council, and then there's an advisory committee. This bill will make changes to the membership of the advisory committee. I'm wondering if…. As the minister indicates, this was as a result of an extensive process. Is the documentation of that extensive process available in the public domain?

Hon. G. Abbott: All of that is on the website. The member could refer to the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture website and will get much detail with respect to the extent and nature of the consultation from that.

B. Simpson: As we have a number of bills in front of us, I will admit to the minister that I haven't had an opportunity to look at that. I was on the webpage looking for it but couldn't immediately find that. I will go back and take a look at that, but I'll take the minister's comments at face value.

The minister is also aware that the debate on this bill comes at an interesting time, with the release of the B.C. First Nations languages report, 2010, that has hit the press and has been reported in the press over the weekend. I would like to refer to some of that as a result of the dialogue we'll have on section 1.

Section 1 takes the original language, which is "preserve, restore and enhance First Nations heritage, language and culture" and changes it to "protect, revitalize and enhance." I wonder if the minister, from his own perspective, can tell the House why what appears to be a semantic change is critical and what the rationale is behind changing from "preserve" and "restore" to "protect" and "revitalize."

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's question, because it is a very important question. British Columbia is blessed with some 32 indigenous languages. I think something like 60 percent of the indigenous languages in Canada are found in British Columbia. So it is a remarkable part of the aboriginal heritage in British Columbia that we have so many languages.

The challenge, as the critic alludes to, is that some of the 32 languages are certainly very much threatened. I think this would be a concern to all members of the House that that very special aspect of language and culture in British Columbia is threatened.

[1620]

We've responded to that, in some measure, with a program called FirstVoices, which is an excellent program that the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council directs and coordinates. It is a program which has seen a $13 million investment since 2001 directly from the government of British Columbia, but it's also been partnered currently by the new relationship trust and, to some extent, by some corporate entities as well, who have very thoughtfully provided encouragement and financial support.
[ Page 5125 ]

In the current year budget, '10-11, there is about $1.5 million directly from the province of British Columbia, I think close to a million dollars from the new relationship trust and some additional support, not as extensive as we might hope, from the federal government as well. We're currently engaged in some discussions with Heritage Canada to see if we can get a more substantial recognition of the number of aboriginal languages in British Columbia, and we're optimistic that those discussions will bear some fruit.

What is occurring here is certainly going to be supportive of and complementary to the efforts to protect and sustain the aboriginal languages in this province. As I said in my earlier answer, the council and the advisory committee went out and did a very extensive consultation right across the province. They believe that moving to representation based on language groupings rather than on tribal councils will provide for a more representative and reflective composition of the advisory group.

B. Simpson: A large portion of the amendments are with respect to the minister's last comments, which is the makeup of the advisory group. There have been some interesting changes in there that we'll go into. We are dealing with section 1 here, and that's the change of language from the original act, which is "preserve" and "restore," to the new language of "protect" and "revitalize."

I would say that the minister understates what the current status of First Nations languages are, and I think the report that came out this weekend shows that very clearly. I would suggest that the reason we're moving to language like "protect" and "revitalize" is because we are at the juncture where if we don't do something dramatic, if there aren't additional resources, if there isn't additional work put into First Nations languages, then we will actually lose them.

The minister indicates that some are under duress, but in the report that came out this weekend, the comments are that all B.C. First Nations languages are in a state of critical endangerment. There is no waffling there. The very council that this bill refers to uses the word "all" and states: "All B.C. First Nations languages are in a state of critical endangerment."

The second thing the report points out is that despite $21.5 million since 1990, despite the efforts of the council, which they indicate have been significant efforts — these are not my words; these are the council's words: "These efforts are not enough." They indicate that there is an urgent need to act now and that immediate action needs to be taken.

Of the languages that we have in British Columbia, three of those languages are already regarded as sleeping, which means we don't have a current speaker. We have not captured that language. The vast majority are already nearly extinct, and the remainder are severely endangered.

The council report points out that the status of First Nation languages are at a stage where they really can no longer be preserved or restored unless dramatic steps are taken. That's why the language is changing to protecting them — because some we're going to lose — and revitalizing them. I would suggest to the minister that that's really what the change is.

[1625]

My question to the minister is very specific. The document that was released this weekend by the council states — and this is from page 39 of the report:

"The First Peoples Council has provided funding, resources and capacity-building opportunities for successful language revitalization programming for the past 20 years. However, the extent of language programming and the amount of funding fall far short of what is necessary to ensure the successful revitalization of all B.C. First Nations languages. Because of the limited funding, many communities receive no funding at all. The First Peoples Council seeks to secure increased funding for the expansion of language programming in British Columbia."

The report also states quite clearly that what is needed in British Columbia is a definitive, secure year-over-year plan to achieve this, and part of what they call for is legislation to ensure that B.C.'s First Nations languages and cultures are indeed protected. That is a big preamble to a couple of questions for the minister.

First off, is the legislation referred to in the report that came out this weekend…? And the exact language is: "…create legislation and official recognition to protect B.C.'s First Nations languages and cultures." Is this — these changes to the existing act — that legislation?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, it is not. Section 1 that we're currently debating…. The language change in there is one that was requested by the council after its extensive consultation. As you might expect, this bill was created well before the release of the report that we saw on the weekend.

While I'm up, note that on my left is Mariann Burka and on my right, Stephen Dunn from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations.

B. Simpson: I thank the staff members for their presence and their input.

I know we're constrained in the House about asking about legislation and other forms of legislation, but I wanted to make sure that I was understanding what's happening here, because there is a call for legislation that will explicitly protect First Nations languages, and I'm glad the minister clarified that this is not it.

With respect to the legislation we have in front of us, however, a semantic change in an existing piece of legislation will not do the job. I'm wondering: does this semantic change come with changes in the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations, changes in funding, something that will actually guarantee that the work that is being
[ Page 5126 ]
called to be done, the real work of actually protecting and revitalizing First Nations languages…?

Will there be substantive changes in the restructuring of the council or the ministry's budget to make sure that the work actually gets done and that the shortfall in resources is addressed?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised this is a minor word change. I don't think anyone estimates that this minor change is going to be definitive in the outcome of whether 32 aboriginal languages will be preserved or revitalized. It is a modest wording change which has been initiated at the request of the council.

B. Simpson: Forgive me if I'm a bit cynical. This government has a propensity to use language as an excuse not to actually do things, whether it's the heartlands strategy or, in the case of this file, the new relationship, which, the minister must know, many First Nations are calling words only, empty rhetoric, no substance.

What I wanted to make sure, and I'm glad the minister has stated it the way he has, is that some minor changes are not a substitute for the concerted work that still needs to be done.

[1630]

There was actually a question asked about this in the House of Parliament today by MP Jean Crowder, who got a response from Minister Moore that there were going to be some plans in place, some work being done with the minister.

I'd like to ask the minister: in conjunction with changing this act and some of the changes that are being made here, will the other needs of the council also be addressed? Is there another way that…? Let me make sure I'm clear on the question. Will there be a process that will continue to evolve to address the resource needs to actually deal with the preservation, enhancement, revitalization of First Nations languages, as the federal minister indicated today?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member reminding the House that the opposition is often possessed of a cynicism, whether warranted or unwarranted, that is often reflected in the comments that they make in debate.

In this case I can only say again that the words that are used here are ones that have been thoughtfully requested by the council after their long deliberation and consultation with First Nations across the province. These are not words, regardless of the level of cynicism that the member may feel on a daily basis, that are there because the government thought that they were better words or different words or superior words. They are words that have been requested by the council.

In terms of how we continue to improve on a constant basis the work that is underway to protect and revitalize First Nations languages, I think one of the important discussions has to be between the federal and provincial governments and, in particular, discussion between Heritage Canada and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

The division of the funds from Heritage Canada up to this date has not been based on the number of languages that exist in any province. It has been based on a division by population, generally, and other ways. It's not reflective of the number of languages we have.

I am optimistic, though, that in the discussions we'll be having in the weeks ahead, hopefully, we will get to a better place in terms of the division of Heritage Canada dollars, because the addition of some additional federal support to this, I think, would be valuable.

D. Routley: The Cowichan people represent the most populous band in the province. They're members of the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group. There's been a longstanding effort in the area, in the region, to preserve the Hul'qumi'num dialect, and I wonder if the minister could explain to me how changing the words in the act from "preserving and restoring" to "protecting and revitalizing" could affect their efforts, which have been longstanding — more than four decades in an official program to try to restore the language.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't think there will be a substantive difference based on the very minor wording change that has been proposed here by the council. Again, as I said in an earlier response to the opposition critic, this is a minor change. It is not meant to be the substantive saving grace between saving a language or a dialect or not. It is a minor wording change that has been precipitated by the request of the council after its long consultation.

D. Routley: Although the Cowichan band is the most populous band in the province, there are approximately two dozen or perhaps even fewer fluent speakers left, and it's obvious that through the loss of these elders and their language capacity, the language is, as the council has indicated, in a state of critical endangerment.

[1635]

There are language programs in our elementary schools. There are child care programs in the Chemainus band that attempt to acquaint the youngest members of the Hul'qumi'num with their culture and their heritage and their language. But those programs are limited by scarce funding, and they are also threatened, again, by the loss of the elders who can provide real insight into saving these languages.

It seems worrisome, given the critical endangerment of the languages, that we would be moving from "preserving and restoring" to "protecting and revitalizing," because it does indicate perhaps a resignation to
[ Page 5127 ]
the loss of language. Is there any such resignation indicated in this wording change?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, there's certainly no resignation to the loss of the languages. I think there is a recognition of the enormous challenge that Cowichan, the Hul'qumi'num dialect, and 31 other languages across British Columbia face.

That, indeed, is why we have worked strenuously over now close to ten years in terms of the FirstVoices program. I know there were during the NDP years some good programs as well that were aimed at trying to ensure that those very special heritage languages would survive. So there's recognition that there's much challenge. There's recognition that a number of the elders, perhaps in the Cowichan case as well, are some of the last of the speakers of certain languages. We respect all that.

This is probably not the place for a full discussion of the strategy which has been undertaken by the council in relation to FirstVoices and all of the different pieces that are involved in trying to ensure that the languages are protected, sustained, revitalized and so on, because there are a number of pieces there.

I would note that we have added $400,000 to the base budget of this program in a three-year pilot project, and in addition to what we hope will be incrementally added from the federal government, we have now committed to maintaining that as well.

D. Routley: The council has also called for a year-over-year plan and funding to match that plan. The minister's last answer made frequent use of the word "recognition," although in a different context from the recognition that the council has requested from government. Is there in this change of language the hope of official recognition being granted to the Hul'qumi'num dialect and others?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer is yes.

G. Coons: It's interesting. Over the last three or four years I've had a lot of conversations with the SHIP program on Haida Gwaii, the Skidegate Haida immersion program, and dealt with the concern of their travel — where they weren't allowed to travel outside of the province, and the only other Haida speakers are in Alaska. I dealt with the friendship houses of British Columbia to deal with that.

They looked at revamping their criteria, which they did. Then they revamped it so that you could only go to the annual elders conference versus workshops and conferences around. I worked on that for three or four years and finally felt that we got somewhere with that.

Whenever I travel to Haida Gwaii — and as the minister knows when he's there — there is a concern about the language and the number of elders that are still left doing it. I'm just wondering as far as…. And again, not just the Haida — down with the Nuxalk and the Tsimshian and the Nisga'a — all of the languages. I'm just wondering. They have concerns, as the Assembly of First Nations have always had, about the preservation of languages, where they've brought that forward.

[1640]

I'm just wondering how changing the language of the act will ensure that languages such as the Haida, Tsimshian and Nuxalk are actually preserved and meet the goal of where we need to go.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think that the answer I would give, again, in respect of section 1…. The member may want to raise it again in respect to section 2, but in respect to section 1, it is a minor, modest language change that has been proposed by the council after their extensive consultation. There is nothing substantive with respect to the change of the wording that will guarantee outcomes in terms of language preservation versus language loss.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Simpson: I'll do my shot across the bow on this cynicism debate that we seem to be having, because the cynicism isn't simply the opposition. Certainly when I meet with First Nations leadership, particularly post–reconciliation act, there's a lot of cynicism with respect to the new relationship that's out there among First Nations communities. It's not simply constrained to debate in this House.

On section 2. Again, this is adding some structural changes to the existing act, changing the numbering somewhat. But it's adding a definition, and the definition is the definition of "First Nations language group."

The definition states that it "means a First Nations language group prescribed by the minister" under a subsequent section of the act. I'm just curious why — given the document that was released this weekend with explicit statements about First Nations language groups existing, the definition of dialects and all that work that already seems to exist to define and differentiate First Nations languages — we need a definition of First Nations language group that actually gives the minister prescriptive authority to define First Nations language groups.

If the minister could explain why the minister — he or someone else — has the right to define First Nations languages as opposed to recognizing the ones that exist or pre-existed.

Hon. G. Abbott: The aim of this amendment is to allow the minister to specify those First Nations language
[ Page 5128 ]
groups after consulting with the board. That's the aim here: to ensure that we do this at the direction of and in accordance with the understanding of the board in relation to First Nations language groups.

B. Simpson: My point still remains, though. I'm unclear because the board has operated under the presumption of defined First Nations languages. They're already recognized. The language groups are recognized. There's an interactive map. You can drill down. They have all those phonetical names that are almost impossible for us to pronounce. They're defined down to the level of dialects.

What the minister is referring to is the second portion of this amendment in section 2, which adds a subsection stating: "After consulting with the board, the minister may make regulations setting out the First Nations language groups from which the members of the committee may be appointed."

Is it only in reference to the makeup of the board that we need to now define by regulation First Nations languages? Or are we attempting to define First Nations languages with respect to resources and with respect to the language of "protect and revitalize"? I'm just unclear what the implications of this are.

If I have, for example, a First Nations language that is designated as sleeping…. My understanding of that definition is that we don't have current members who speak it, and we don't have documentation of it. All those things don't exist to put structure to that language. Could the board decide that there's no representation there? What is it we're attempting to do by using regulation to define First Nations languages?

[1645]

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is that it relates only to the appointment to the advisory council or committee. It is not broader than that.

I guess, to further make the point: there is clarity with respect to the lines when it comes to tribal councils. I'm advised that there is much less clarity when it comes to language groups. So in establishing these regulations I'll be working closely with the council to ensure that the language groups have been completely and properly identified and that the opportunity for all language groups to participate in the activities of the council is achieved.

B. Simpson: However, again, the difficulty that we have as legislators is creating laws that don't end up creating a different circumstance than the one we intended to create. That's a great caution.

I know I've talked to a number of folks, for example, involved with the gas station industry and the law that was passed by this House and the implications and ramifications that it had for them and their businesses, etc. What we do in here and how we put laws in place may end up getting unintended consequences.

My concern with this one — and it may be absolutely unfounded and unwarranted, but it's my job as the opposition critic to ask those questions — is that it appears as though this could end up being exclusionary, that you have a self-fulfilling mechanism where you define or allow a group to define the languages that are going to be recognized, when you have limited resources to protect and revitalize languages. It seems that the minister is indicating that the B.C. First Nations languages haven't already been defined, dialects haven't already been defined. But now we're going to somehow….

I guess what I'm saying is that it feels to me that this could be used for exclusionary purposes. Instead of broadening the tent, you're actually going to use it to make the tent narrower in order to make sure that the limited resources you've got then deal with the languages that are represented on the council.

Is there a check and balance? Is there a way to make sure that this doesn't end up excluding languages that might be too difficult or too far gone to put resources into, and that are — oh, by the way — not represented on the council and, therefore, don't have an advocacy directly at the table to make sure that they get the resources they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the provisions in the amended section 2 are ones that were requested by the council after their extensive consultation with aboriginal people and leadership across the province.

The aim certainly is to be more inclusionary, not exclusionary. It is difficult to imagine, if the aim is to be more inclusionary of First Nations languages, that we would not move in the direction that has been recommended.

The council has identified as an issue for the government, prompting this series of amendments…. They have suggested that having representation by tribal council, in fact, can be exclusionary in that the 24 tribal councils currently represented on the advisory committee represent only 16 of the languages in the province. The aim is to get representation from more or all of the languages in the province.

The council believes that this is the appropriate mechanism to do that. We certainly support them in that aim, and I do think that this is a positive step and one that I find difficult to construe, even from a most cynical perspective, as potentially being exclusionary.

[1650]

B. Simpson: This isn't me being cynical in this case. It's actually me being a little befuddled. I'm trying to understand what's actually going on here, so it could be cynical befuddlement, I guess.

More to the point, I understand the minister's point. There is some language later on repealing direct refer-
[ Page 5129 ]
ence to tribal councils in favour of language groups, etc., which we're going to get to.

Let me ask the question this way. Is there a dissenting voice anywhere about this change from tribal councils to language groups and giving the minister the right to do this by regulation?

Hon. G. Abbott: No. I understand that leadership groups were canvassed quite extensively on it, and we understand there are no dissenting voices.

B. Simpson: Does the minister foresee that the regulations he will have the ability to make will simply reflect what, in the report that we just got this weekend, are the predefined First Nations language groups that already exist — the 32 or 33 of them?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

B. Simpson: This is where the details of structuring the board based on language groups, as opposed to tribal councils, begin to get fleshed out. Again, as opposition members…. At least this one's a nice one. In forestry bills, when you have 60 or 70 pages of amendments and you've got four or five acts to go through…. The original bill in this case was only six pages, so it was a bit easier for me to actually go and correlate clause by clause.

Section 3 of the amendment act is actually making changes to section 2 of the original act. In the original act it's going to repeal subsection (2), which is: "The minister must invite each tribal council to nominate a person to represent it on the committee."

The amendment is going to be: "The minister may appoint one representative to the committee from each First Nations language group on the recommendation of the board." That's that shift from tribal council to First Nations language group. Then in (2.1) is an additional subclause: "For the purposes of subsection (2), a First Nations language group may submit to the board the names of one or more members." Then it goes on to: "…First Nations language group considers suitable for appointment…and (b) who are willing to accept an appointment…."

My question on this is…. The reason, I would imagine, they went to tribal councils originally is because they were a clearly defined political unit with a structure in place. They would have ease with which they could say: "Okay, we need somebody for X boards" and "This is one of the boards we need somebody for." They could put somebody forward.

Is there a similar structure among the language groups that will make it reasonably easy for them to then do the work that the minister is now going to ask them to do, which is to submit names from their particular language group? Does that structure exist?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member accurately and fairly sets out what has taken place in the past. The new section, which moves from appointment by tribal council to appointment by language group, will permit any B.C. First Nations individual, organization or community to make nomination for their language group for membership on the advisory committee.

B. Simpson: If I understand the amendment correctly, that work…. As the minister indicated, it's not as simple. We have a tribal council that has done all the work, and they say: "Here's the person." With some minimum vetting or whatever, that process is undertaken.

As the minister has already indicated, there'll potentially be multiple points of recommendations. Am I understanding this amendment correctly? Those multiple points of recommendations are to the board, not to the minister. Then the board actually does the vetting of who they then recommend to the minister. Let me stop there. Is it the work done by the council, and then the council filters that out and makes recommendations to the minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's analysis is correct.

[1655]

B. Simpson: I guess maybe I'm not as befuddled as I think I might be.

If that's the case, then I'm curious whether or not there's a need or whether the corporate entity, which is the council, has within it any conflict resolution or mediation mechanisms. There is the potential that because of the diverse geography and the multiple political entities that exist within language groups, you could actually end up creating a conflict situation, which the council then is going to have to address.

Does the minister foresee…? Is there something that exists in regulation or within the council's corporate structure to address that concern that there may be conflicting views of who should represent that language group?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's question. Conflict-of-interest rules do apply to members of the council. I would suspect that most of the individuals that might be inspired to be a part of the advisory committee would certainly be inspired by a passion for the languages rather than any pecuniary gain or monetary gain. That seems unlikely, give the modest circumstances with which they are rewarded for being a part of it.

B. Simpson: My apologies to the minister. That was not my line of questioning at all. It's because we're going
[ Page 5130 ]
to switch from tribal councils to language groups. Those language groups are over very large parts of the geography of British Columbia, with different political structures within the language group and different dialects within the language group.

It strikes me that because individuals can nominate themselves, tribal councils can still nominate and groups within a dialect group could nominate a person, the nomination process itself may end up creating a conflict within the language group as to who is best to represent their interests at the board. It has nothing to do with conflict of interest. It has to do with how the nomination process is now being structured.

I'm quite certain that one of the reasons why they defaulted to tribal councils before was because it was a simple structure. It left that conflict to be resolved at the tribal council table, and they had to figure it out and pass it forward. Now you've got an independent council that then has to take this wide array of nominations that may end up in creating a conflict in the nomination process, not the nominees themselves. That's what I was asking.

Does the minister foresee a mechanism whereby the council has the ability to mediate disputes? Does the language group have the right to come to the minister, for example, and say: "Look, we have a real problem with this. You know, our dialect has been left behind for so long"? Now we get somebody with this other, more important dialect that is now representing them. They're going to suck all the resources their way. That's the kind of conflict that I'm talking about.

It's not as clean a process as the one it's replacing. I get why the minister would want to move in that direction and the council would want to move in that direction. I'm just wondering if there's any discussion around how you resolve the potential that you end up fostering a conflict as to who is the best person to represent that particular language group.

Hon. G. Abbott: Sorry. I did misunderstand the member's question earlier. I think I appreciate the member's question now.

I think that any kind of appointment structure can potentially give rise to a suggestion of one language group or one dialect being favoured over another. I would think that that possibility exists with the current tribal council appointment versus the alternative appointment process that's envisioned here.

I don't think that anyone has ever suggested in either case that there is a potential. I'm not criticizing the member for raising that possibility. I guess that from an abstract or conceptual perspective, it could be argued that through the nomination process one dialect might get favoured over another or one language might get favoured over another.

[1700]

I would say this, though. The aim here is to try to have as much inclusion of language and dialects as possible. There are, at least in many cases, relatively few fluent speakers and relatively few language experts in these areas. I think the structure of FirstVoices, the structure of the council and the structure of the advisory committee are all aimed at getting people working together rather than working separately towards their ends.

Again, I don't want to be dismissive of the member's question, because it's an important one. But I do think that the whole culture, if you like, of the council and the advisory committee is to protect, sustain and revitalize as many of the languages and dialects as possible. There are a number of tools, again, used in FirstVoices that promote those purposes.

I don't see the danger of the potential that the member references. Again, I appreciate that from an abstract perspective one could argue that, but I don't think that will be the case here.

B. Simpson: With due respect to the minister, when you have 33 language groups and you have to hone that down to nine First Nations voting members on the council who are then making decisions about who is on the advisory committee, when you're dealing with limited resources and the possibility of triage for languages…. And that's not a theoretical possibility. That's going to be a reality if the federal and provincial governments do not put substantive resources into this.

I mean, the minister must know that many of these First Nations have different working relationships with each other, but they also have overlapping claims that cause great conflict. The minister knows that in attempting to put the Yale treaty forward, you have First Nations coming in and actually challenging that in the court system, as was the case with Tsawwassen. You know, you've got members who are not in the treaty process and members who are.

To suggest that there isn't potential for conflict within the First Nations political structure when you move away from that political structure to something that is more free-form, I think, is potentially naive. All I'm asking is: was this discussed? Was it taken into consideration, and was a mechanism put in place?

If there's not a mechanism put in place, then I guess we'll see what happens. But my point to the minister is that with the nine board members — and I get that they're members of the corporate entity called the council and that the advisory committee is bigger than that, but it's the board members who make the decision, if I'm understanding it correctly — on the makeup of the advisory committee, there's the potential for conflict.

With respect to that, just in this section, section 3 of the amendment, there's a repealing of subsection (5). I'm on section 3(c) of the amendment, which is repealing subsection (5) of section 2 in the original act and substituting: "A
[ Page 5131 ]
member of the committee may designate another member of the First Nations language group from which he or she was appointed to attend one or more committee meetings in his or her place."

In the original act, individuals could only do that with the permission of the tribal council, because that was the political structure used to appoint them in the first place. Is there a process…? There's a process to determine who the member of that language group is, and this seems to remove any kind of vetting process or any process to make sure that the designate has also gone through some kind of approval process.

[1705]

Is that deliberate? Is that just left up to that individual, or will the nominees list be used to make sure that the member who is designated has actually been vetted or been looked at and will get the support of the language group?

Hon. G. Abbott: In the section the reference is to alternates to the regular members. There is no specified formal vetting process for the alternates. It will be practised on an informal basis.

B. Simpson: Yes, because before, as the minister is indicating, it was not just subject to the approval of the tribal council. It was in writing from the tribal council.

As I understand the minister correctly, if I'm appointed to this, then I just find the designate that I think is suitable. I tap that person on the shoulder and say: "I can't attend a couple of meetings here because I'm taking off or I have other duties. Would you please substitute for me?" And the minister is indicating that's all that's going to occur. So at a meeting of the advisory committee somebody will show up.

And what will they have — a letter or an e-mail exchange? There must be some way that the person is designated by the nominee and appointee.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, there is no formal vetting process requested or envisioned. So one would expect that in the case of an alternate, they would…. When they attend in lieu of the appointed member, they would advise the committee chair that they are representing another person at the meeting, and the participation would be noted on an informal basis.

B. Simpson: Just a final point on this section. Again, in the original act it's section 2(7). I think I'm answering my own question actually. So I just want to be clear because I misread it, and I'll get clarity.

So the committee still does this once a year? It doesn't look like that's actually repealed. It's just that "recommend to the minister the person to be appointed under subsection 3(2)(b)" is being removed. The committee must meet once a year, and that's it. That's all that this clause now says. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: The committee could meet more often if they wish, but the statute requires them to meet at least once a year. But they could meet more often if that was their wish.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

B. Simpson: Again, this is amendments to section 3 in the original act. We're now talking about the corporate entity, the actual council itself. The current makeup of the council is "(a) 3 voting members appointed by the minister; (b) no more than 9 First Nations voting members appointed by the minister from a list of persons recommended" — as we were just discussing — and then "(c) a non-voting member appointed by the minister on the recommendation of the board for the purpose of providing additional historical, cultural or community perspective."

[1710]

This section of the amendments changes that to two voting members appointed by the minister as opposed to three and then just changes the language relative to what we're talking about — a recommendation of the board as opposed to tribal councils, etc. But then it adds "a non-voting member appointed by the minister for the purpose of providing the government's perspective to the board."

First question on this is: what is the thinking behind just reducing the number of government members appointed to the board as voting members?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, this is a change that was requested by the council, which has been initiated through the amendment to the act. What this amendment does is address a concern by the council and is in fact responding to the wishes of the council.

The council desired an odd number of voting members to reduce the likelihood of a tie vote. In order to achieve this, we're reducing the number of voting members appointed directly by the minister, and the number of voting members appointed on recommendation of the council remains unchanged.

B. Simpson: I'm now understanding my notes to myself. This is section 3(2)(b), which was referred to in section 2(7), about the committee meeting once a year and recommending to the minister the persons to be appointed under 3(2)(b).

That section now reads that the committee must meet once a year, and the statement "recommend to the minister" has been removed. Subsequently under here, we're now changing the list of persons recommended to the minister.

I'm not clear now. Given these two changes that are occurring, how does the minister determine the First Nations voting members that will be appointed by him or her?
[ Page 5132 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: The board will be making those recommendations to the minister.

B. Simpson: If I understand it, this is a fairly substantive change then, because previously it was the advisory committee that came up with a list of potential board members. They did the work. They then made the recommendation to the minister. The minister then appointed the First Nations voting members as a result of the committee's work.

Now, if I understand this correctly, the board actually continues to make recommendations to the minister about who should sit on the board. Again, the board is made up of only nine First Nations members from 33 different language groups. Is there a check and balance that the minister or the board has to make sure that all language groups end up over time being reflected in the makeup of the board?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the quickest route to understanding the change is that board members aren't there simply to reflect one language group or one dialect. The board members each bring experience, expertise and qualifications in a variety of areas related to language preservation and revitalization. They have a broader frame of interest than simply one language. They may have a passion for one language, but the reason they're on the board is because of the broader qualification that they bring to the table.

[1715]

B. Simpson: Again, we are creating a law here that is changing the nature of the relationship, in this case between the First Peoples advisory committee, which reflects the broad spectrum of the language groups, dialects, etc., which…. At this juncture, that entity made recommendations about who should be on the board.

I'm not impugning any of the members of the board or suggesting that anything is going on. I'm simply saying that this is a fairly significant shift away from an entity that represented all of the language groups to an entity that, because of its makeup, may be there to represent all language groups, but you've got a narrower group of people making the decisions.

Let me go ahead of myself then. There is a subsection going to be added that suggests that the board may be unable or fail to make recommendations, which I find an interesting subsection, given that the minister said he didn't think there would be any conflict. This is a presumption that there's a problem in finding suitable people to get on the board or if the board itself can't reconcile who should be in there.

The minister's own amendments presume that there might be some conflict at some point or an inability of the board to do this work. It says that "the minister may make appointments to the board in accordance with a process developed by the minister to identify suitable candidates for appointment to the board."

If the minister is going to have a process to identify suitable candidates for appointment to the board, does the council have to have a similar process in place that the minister looks at, or that there's some oversight to, to make sure its own internal logic and internal processes are working?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I respect the member's question. We are making this change at the request and on the advice of the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council because they believe that it would be more inclusive than the present process, which again involves 24 tribal councils but represents only 16 of the indigenous languages in British Columbia.

The narrow reason for this provision, I would note, is that given the new and unique nature of the board making recommendations, there is a possibility that where a board may not exist to make recommendation, this provision will ensure that in that circumstance the minister has the authority to establish a process for appointments.

B. Simpson: Sorry, I'm not quite sure what the circumstance would be where a board does not exist, so I wonder if the minister can clarify that. There's a presumption in here that you have an existing board, and all you're doing is changing the membership out. The terms are clearly outlined in the act.

The only way that I could see a board cease to exist in a corporate entity is if the corporate entity is in fact dissolved in some fashion. I note in the act that the member is the sole shareholder in here, as far as I can tell, so maybe that's how it all defaults to the minister. But under what circumstances would a board not exist that this clause is then required?

Hon. G. Abbott: Such a circumstance is unlikely to ever exist. However, in the drafting of a statute such as this, the legislative draftspeople like to see provisions which provide the certainty that is necessary in law.

B. Simpson: Hence, my questions around how maybe you want conflict resolution or mediation language in the case that a situation will never exist, as the minister indicated, where there might be conflict in putting members on the advisory committee. But they don't have that clause in there, so we'll see how that works out.

[1720]

Final couple of questions on this section. Again, I wonder if the minister could explain — according to him, all of this comes from the council — what it is that the council board is intending to achieve by having a non-voting member appointed by the minister for the purpose of providing the government's perspective to
[ Page 5133 ]
the board. What is the nature of the government's perspective that this person is supposed to provide?

Hon. G. Abbott: The position already exists, and it is just moving from voting to non-voting.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

B. Simpson: This is an interesting one in light of, as we've indicated, the very stark reality that was presented in the B.C. First Nations languages report late last week, which has been looked at and reported on over the weekend — the need to get on with preserving and enhancing and revitalizing First Nations languages.

Again, I'm just going to look to the minister to explain the language shift. In the original act — and it's making changes to section 6 in the original act — the language states: "to provide capital and operating monies for the creation, maintenance and administration of First Nations cultural centres and programs throughout British Columbia."

That will be repealed, and the new statement will be: "to provide support to any of the following that are associated with First Nations heritage, language, culture or arts…." Why the removal, explicitly, of the dollar part of the equation?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer, again, is…. I guess, in the first instance, this is a change that has been requested by the council. They have made the request because the purposes of the council as set out in the act — current act, not amended — do not reflect the current work of the council. The council has not provided capital or operating funding to First Nations cultural organizations in B.C. for over ten years.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

B. Simpson: This switches out of the work that we're doing just now and is actually a land transfer. I wonder if the minister could just put on the public record, above and beyond what that small section says, what is actually occurring here.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of this section is to give retroactive validation to an order-in-council. The member, I know, is well aware of the agreement that was reached late last year between the Tsay Keh Dene First Nation, B.C. Hydro and the government of British Columbia with respect to an area of traditional Tsay Keh Dene First Nation territory that had been flooded by the backwater of the W.A.C. Bennett dam and the Williston reservoir.

The provisions here attempt to ensure that the Tsay Keh Dene get full benefit of the previous orders-in-council which had been enacted in respect of lands affected and utilized to mitigate that loss of land to the Tsay Keh Dene.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

L. Krog: I suspect the minister may wish to have his staff here.

[1725]

I'm going to presume that by adding the definition of "fossil," there's no present definition in law that would work in the circumstances. Assuming that's the case, why are we not defining fossil in the legislation as opposed to leaving it to be defined by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Surely we must have some idea of what we're talking about.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I begin, I'll introduce the staff that are with me here as well. Grant Parnell is the assistant deputy minister, and behind me are Linda Bates and Elisabeth Eldridge, who are supporting me here today.

Just to respond directly to the member opposite in terms of the definition. As you know, today we launched a fossil management framework for consultation with the public around the definition of a fossil. So it would be premature to put this directly into legislation until we've had the chance to receive the public input through the fossil management framework.

We want to make sure that we have the flexibility through the regulatory approach to be able to potentially have different types of fossils. It could be tied to a different management regime for those different types of fossils, so the regulatory approach provides us that flexibility to do it as opposed to putting it specifically into legislation.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

L. Krog: This is a new provision that would allow the transfer of fossils located on Crown land if done in accordance with the act. I take it that right now, obviously, all fossils are deemed to be Crown assets. Or are they deemed to be part of the land in which they're located?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section that is being dealt with here — and you actually need to look to a section ahead in terms of referencing this section — is tied to section
[ Page 5134 ]
50, which exempts fossils from Crown land disposition so that the Crown maintains ownership of the fossils.

Currently that's not the case. So what the subsequent amendment does is ensure that that's the case, and this section then allows us to deal with transferring those fossils that are on Crown land. We can have the ability to transfer that ownership, or we could allow those fossils to be removed from Crown land under agreement.

[1730]

It does link to a subsequent amendment we're bringing forward, which makes sure that fossils remain on Crown land and remain the property of the Crown unless they're dealt with through this section in terms of other forms of transfer of ownership or removal for other purposes.

L. Krog: Just to clarify, then. If a private landowner today in British Columbia discovers what would be reasonably described as a fossil on their property, do they have ownership of that, or does that ownership rest with the Crown?

Hon. S. Thomson: Primarily the ownership, unless they were transferred by a Crown grant, remains with the Crown.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

L. Krog: Just to clarify. If I apply for a grant to Crown land now, assuming this bill passes and this section passes, then the fossils remain the property of the province unless they're specifically transferred in the disposition of the Crown land to me. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Following this amendment, the answer to that is yes.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

L. Krog: Just to clarify, to understand the effect of this section: will this mean now that literally, unless otherwise directed, all documentation that isn't already covered by electronic filing — transfers to date, mortgages, things of that nature — will, in fact, have to be made or may be made by electronic application only?

Hon. S. Thomson: This provision is enabling. So it will, over time, allow the movement to full electronic process for the submission. As you will note in the provisions, there will continue to be the provisions for exceptions or exemptions from that overall direction, but this will be done in consultation between the authority and the users of the system.

This moves towards enhancing their general direction now towards electronic service delivery and eventually moves to a process where that will be required, but with certain exemptions.

L. Krog: In reading the explanatory note for this section, it talks about: "permits the director to designate electronic forms and make directions requiring that only an electronic form be submitted to a land title office."

[1735]

Relying on that explanatory note and looking at the section, I take it that what we're really saying is that if you don't have access to electronic filing in British Columbia, then you will not be able to file the documents yourself, so to speak. You'll not be able to wander down to the land title office, stand there across from a clerk, hand the documents over, pay the requisite fee and, hopefully, get them registered.

Hon. S. Thomson: No. The amendments specifically set out processes where exceptions or exemptions can be provided for, both at the director level and at the registrar level, from an operational perspective. So the flexibility will remain for that process. It's not meant to prevent that from happening.

What it is meant to do is to direct it…. Over a period of time, under certain circumstances, electronic delivery will be mandated and required, but that will be done in consultation with user groups, always recognizing that we will have that flexibility to deal with very specific circumstances, both at the director level and at the registrar level. So it won't prevent anybody from getting their titles filed.

L. Krog: I'm just reading the section. It says in 168.111 that the director may "direct that one or more or a class of applications, instruments, plans, plan applications, returns or other documents or things, for which an electronic form is designated under paragraph (a), only be submitted electronically to the land title office in accordance with this Part."

I read that to say that by passage of this section, if the director says that it's only going to be submitted electronically, then — with great respect to what the minister has tried to explain to me — I read that as meaning that ultimately, the director can say: "It's only electronic filing, and that's it."

If the minister can tell me I'm wrong, or explain to me why I'm wrong, or I'm not understanding this section, I would be happy to hear it.

Hon. S. Thomson: This section needs to be taken in referencing the next two sections as well, which provide, as I mentioned, for those exemptions and exceptions. But the intent is that under certain circumstances and over time, the requirement that only electronic submis-
[ Page 5135 ]
sion could be mandated…. That's the intent of these amendments to the legislation — to provide for that.

Over time that will be the case. As the member opposite says, there will be, as we move to full electronic delivery and enhancing the electronic process, circumstances where those would be the only way that it could be provided. But that will be done in the fullness of time, working with the user groups and always recognizing that the director and the registrar will have that ability to provide specific exemptions or exceptions.

L. Krog: I'm sure the minister is aware that there are still businesses in this province who make a living by filing documents in the land title offices on behalf of various clients, including law firms, notaries, surveyors, etc. That's still a not-uncommon occurrence. It's not, obviously, the business it used to be with electronic filing.

I'm just wondering. What sort of consultation process, if any, was held with those businesses who, you know, employ a fair number of British Columbians, and if so, what were the results of those consultations?

[1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: There was a significant process of consultation with groups as this proposal came forward. The law society, the Society of Notaries Public and the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors all support this overall direction.

As we've indicated, it will be done in the process of time, but I think there's recognition that over time, we need to move to that full electronic delivery. It's the modern way to do business. We want to make sure that we do it in a careful, thoughtful way as this is implemented.

As I said, there's always the exception or the exemption that can be provided by the director and by the registrar through those other provisions in the bill here to be able to deal with those specific circumstances. I think when you look at the way business is going and the way we want to move to electronic delivery to support a more efficient way of filing, to have our Land Title and Survey Authority be the most efficient organization that we can have…. That's the general direction. We do want to support, where it makes sense and where it is needed, that electronic delivery is mandated.

But we have recognized, as part of the consultation process, that there are circumstances where that may not be appropriate right away, where it may not be even appropriate longer term. You may still want continuing exemptions, and that'll be done as the Land Title and Survey Authority continues to consult. We have a stakeholder advisory group, a broad-based group, that provides advice to the authority, so that'll be all part of the process.

Ultimately, where it makes sense, we want to make sure that the legislation provides the ability for the director to be able to mandate electronic delivery.

L. Krog: Just to confirm — and I may well be wrong on this, and I look forward to being corrected — at present the only persons who can submit documents electronically are lawyers or notaries who have an identification number and an access code. That's it. If we move to this new system, if it passes, then what it means is that nobody else except lawyers or notaries will be able to submit documents to a land title office. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: No. Other people have that access currently, or other processes have that access currently. They have to apply. They have to get the security access to do that. As we move forward with electronic delivery, the systems would need to be put in place to make sure that that can happen and that those other organizations and individuals that you reference there would be able to have that access.

Currently this builds upon the electronic service filing that is already in place, and we'll continue to build on it over time and, as we said, continue to work with all organizations and all groups that utilize the service to move to that and, where it's appropriate, to have the authority in the legislation to be able to mandate electronic delivery.

L. Krog: I'll give a simple and concrete example of a married couple, joint tenants in the family home. The spouse dies. Presently takes a property transfer tax form and death certificate to the land title office and submits it. The house is transferred to the surviving joint tenant.

Is it the intention of this, then, that that person will be able to continue that practice, or is that person going to have to go through a person who has completed the access application and has a number, etc.? In other words, are we removing the ability of ordinary British Columbians, who right now can handle one of the most basic things in the death of a joint tenant in any property?

[1745]

Hon. S. Thomson: As part of the consultation process and to deal with situations like the member opposite referenced, as we go through in the consultation, there could be a provision established by the registrar operationally that would provide for a class of filings that would be exempt from that process and would allow people to still do just as the member opposite says.

There also will be the ability for people to go through the service processes and be able to file those electronically. That's why we built in the flexibility both at the
[ Page 5136 ]
director level and at the registrar level to make sure we do deal with situations like that as we move forward in consultation over time.

L. Krog: I don't wish to belabour this point unnecessarily, but in the minister's earlier remarks I think it was made fairly clear that the policy is to move to a full and absolute electronic filing system. That appears to be the policy intention, and that's more or less what I interpreted from the minister's remarks.

Realistically, we may have this for a little while — and I'll call it a sop to the general public out there — that you can still wander down to Victoria on a Friday afternoon and submit the death certificate or whatever, or file a power of attorney that may be necessary in order to effect a transfer of a property because someone has become incapable of managing their affairs. Ultimately, that's going to disappear. I mean, that's really what I'm hearing from the minister, and correct me if I'm wrong.

If the concept is to eliminate the friendly face on the other side of the counter in the land title office, then I want to hear that from the minister's lips. It seems to me that is exactly what he's telling the House: we are going to go to a system where you will have the land title office essentially being a sealed facility — I don't mean this dramatically or unkindly — a facility that doesn't have to be or shouldn't be open to the public in a practical sense because everything is going to come into it electronically.

There will be no counter service. There will be no necessity for agents. There are a number of land agents still employed in this province who make a living providing this service to lawyers, notaries and other customers. Is that what we're looking at? If we are, I just want the minister to say so. If we're not, then tell me different.

Hon. S. Thomson: What we're moving to here is a situation where the vast majority of filings would need to be done electronically. We will continue to work with the authority, and they will continue to work with their stakeholder groups in moving to that over time.

I think there will always be some smaller amount that will need to be filed manually or in other ways. That's why we have, under section 168.113, that additional flexibility at the registrar level operationally to be able to accept those applications, to be able to set up a class of filings that would fit in under that category. Those would be determined by policy practice provisions that would be established by the board and provided to the registrar to give him his direction.

I think for the vast majority, we are looking towards enhancing the current provisions or the current direction of the authority for electronic filing, but recognizing that we've provided the flexibility where there will always be a small amount that can continue to be filed manually where appropriate.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

[1750]

L. Krog: I take it that this specific provision and all of the revisions 20 through to 98…. I'm making reference to it. Under the explanatory note these are all referred to as harmonizing "the language of the referenced Acts with the language of the new Supreme Court civil rules and Supreme Court family rules that come into force July 1, 2010."

What I'm simply looking for from the Attorney General is confirmation that all of these sections are strictly language-based, and they have no impact or change in the law, the substantive law of the province of British Columbia, except insofar as they implement, if you will, the necessary changes under the new rules.

Hon. M. de Jong: With respect to the sections right up to 98, on the basis of my reading of them, the advice I have received, the material I have read and the confirmation I have just received, I can provide that assurance to the member.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, to cover my bases and protect my political integrity, so to speak, these relate strictly to the Supreme Court rules that have already been approved. It's a done deal, and all of these provisions, sections 20 to 98, simply are in order to ensure that all of the language in the various statutes that make reference to the Supreme Court rules or the rules of court or the Supreme Court family rules will now actually comply and be in concordance. And that's the end of the story.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes.

Sections 20 to 98 inclusive approved.

On section 99.

L. Krog: If the Attorney General can just confirm. What exactly is the real error here that we're correcting in 99?

Hon. M. de Jong: So to try to particularize. I think the member knows that the mechanism that was established here was to allow for corrections by regulation in the following areas: errors of form, errors of style, numbering errors, typographical errors and reference errors.

I have the two regulations. I'm not sure that the member wants me to go through each of the probably 40-odd sections I have in confirming that they fit specifically within one of the categories that are addressed.
[ Page 5137 ]

What I might do, though, is put on the record which statutes are referred to in the regulation so that that is on the record.

[1755]

The University Act, the Veterinary Drugs Act, the Elections Act, the Estate Administration Act, the Family Relations Act, Law and Equity Act, Lobbyists Registration Act, Offence Act, Property Law Act, Utilities Commission Act, Social Workers Act, Local Government Act, Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act, Vancouver Charter, Independent School Act, School Act, Environmental Management Act, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, Wildlife Act, Carbon Tax Act, Cooperative Association Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act, Personal Property Security Act, Tobacco Tax Act, Forest Act, Wildfire Act, Health Authorities Act, Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, Health Professions Act, Safety Standards Act, Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, Passenger Transportation Act. That with respect to order 18/2010.

The second regulation, quite frankly, is a bit lengthy for me to read into the record. I'd be happy to send the member a copy of it. Again, I am satisfied the alterations fit within the ambit of what the act contemplated.

Sections 99 and 100 approved.

On section 101.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can simply explain the actual effect of section 101. What does it mean in simple language?

[1800]

Hon. B. Bennett: This, I think, could be fairly characterized as a housekeeping change. Really, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify some ambiguity that exists in the legislation today.

The legislation today provides the provincial government with the authority by regulation to customize legislation that's applicable to local governments by giving them additional powers or creating exceptions or modifications to statutory requirements. Essentially, what this amendment does is it "clarifies that regulations may be made under this section despite the Act," and that is consistent with the original intention of the provisions.

Does that make any sense to the member?

L. Krog: Whether it makes any sense to me or not is not of much consequence in this place.

When I hear that the explanatory section says, "clarifies that regulations may be made under this section despite the Act," is that saying that even if the regulation is contrary to the statute, the regulation governs?

Hon. B. Bennett: That's correct, Member. That is exactly what it does. That's actually the purpose of the section — to allow, in some very specific situations, local government to essentially go in a different direction than the act allows generally.

L. Krog: Perhaps it is as obvious as it seems to me.

So I take it that what we're seeing with this amendment is that notwithstanding that municipal government, which exists only as a result of the creation of a statute…. It has no inherent right to exist. This essentially says that they can do something that they're not empowered to do under the statute. Or is the minister saying that notwithstanding that the statute says X, if the government chooses to do Y, that's permissible even though the statute doesn't authorize it?

I guess I'm looking for a more fulsome explanation from the minister so that I understand this.

Hon. B. Bennett: It is an unusual section in the legislation and, just interestingly, was created in 1992 by a former government, and I think with good reason. I think it was an attempt to give local government some flexibility to deal with the situations that even the provincial government, as wise as we are, didn't contemplate arising at some point in the future.

I've actually asked my staff to give me an example that might help the member.

I guess originally when this was created, it was created to address a situation in Port Alice, where there was a bankrupt mill. There was a need for the local government to provide tax relief, and they weren't allowed to do that under the current legislation. This provision was added so that by regulation…. Of course, by regulation gives the provincial government and local government an opportunity to act a little more quickly in amending legislation to allow them to provide that tax relief in that situation.

[1805]

I'm advised that since 1993 there have been 35 to 40 different occasions where regulation was used to assist local government in doing things that, frankly, are outside of the legislation.

L. Krog: I'm delighted by the history lesson the minister gave me, suggesting this was passed in 1992. But I just want to be clear from a strictly legal and constitutional perspective, then.

What this says is that notwithstanding what the statute says, cabinet, by regulation, supersedes the statute. The statute is what we in here create by passage of the law, as opposed to regulations, which are supposed to flow from the statutes under our system.

I appreciate that the minister says that it has only been used 35 times, but really, what this provision confirms is that it has been the practice that notwithstanding what
[ Page 5138 ]
legislation says, by regulation you can change the impact or give a power that doesn't exist under the statute simply by passing a regulation in cabinet, which is not subject to any public debate.

If the minister can confirm that's the case, that's fine. Can't say I like the concept, but I just want to know for the record if I'm right.

Hon. B. Bennett: I can definitely understand why the member is curious about how this provision works. It might help for me to just tell the member that, first of all, when these 35 to 40 occasions came up between 1993 and the present, it was local government asking the province to pass a regulation that would enable them to do something that they needed to have done for the benefit of their community.

This is not a situation where you have senior government deciding that they're just on a whim going to pass a regulation that enables the province to do something nefarious to the local government. It's actually the reverse.

The second thing that might help the member here is that there are certain things that the authority cannot be used for. This authority cannot be used to override statutory prohibitions. It can't be used to levy new taxes. It can't be used to grant tax exemptions. It can't be used to eliminate electors' assent. It can't be used to implement measures that are retroactive or are available by other means.

So this clearly would be a situation where local government is at its wits' end, so to speak, with nowhere to go with the problem that they have and need some assistance in getting out from under legislation that was never intended to prevent them from helping themselves. This is a situation where, by regulation, we can help them help themselves.

Sections 101 to 107 inclusive approved.

On section 108.

L. Krog: I appreciate the speed with which things are moving. Just to confirm, I'm going to take it that the explanation that was offered by the minister for section 101 applies equally to Islands Trust. Again, this charming little exclusion, so to speak, from what would normally be the debate in this chamber of a similar section applies under the Islands Trust Act.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is correct. This is a parallel provision that sets about doing the same thing with the Islands Trust as what is done by local government.

Section 108 approved.

On section 109.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, again, for 109, a similar provision for the Local Government Act.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is correct.

[1810]

Section 109 approved.

On section 110.

S. Fraser: On section 110, I'm just curious. The amendment here, section 857 of the Local Government Act, to change the acceptance period for the regional growth strategy from 120 to 60 days — is that part of section 110? Is that correct, and if so, the rationale for this change? It's cutting that period in half, so I'm just curious where that came about. What was the rationale for that?

Hon. B. Bennett: The answer to the first question by the member is yes, that is precisely what the amendment does.

The answer to the second question is that this ministry, long before I became minister — in fact, over the past 15 years — has been asked by successive local governments…. Or I should put it a different way. Local government over the past 15 years has indicated that the period could be shortened, that it's longer than it needs to be. Of course, the longer the period is, the more delay there is for projects and investment and jobs and so forth.

S. Fraser: Just a clarification, then, too. The change would also make it so that local government is deemed to have accepted a provision of a regional growth strategy of which it doesn't accept by resolution. Is that a fair analysis of the situation?

Hon. B. Bennett: The answer is no. I don't quite know how the member gets to that conclusion, but clearly no.

Sections 110 and 111 approved.

On section 112.

S. Fraser: Section 112. The section now provides that the minister may set a time when the resolution process for a regional growth strategy must be completed, and it "provides that an affected government is deemed to have accepted provisions of a regional growth strategy that were not changed in a resolution process and that the local government may not object to provisions that it is deemed to have accepted." Would that be a correct analysis of the outcome of section 112?

[1815]
[ Page 5139 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm not 100 percent sure that I understand the question, but I'll provide the answer as best I can. If a local government doesn't indicate that they're opposed or that they accept some provision of a regional growth strategy within the time period set, it would be assumed that they do agree with it. But to be clear, they would have the opportunity to express either opposition or agreement with the whole plan and every aspect of the plan — or at least whatever is under consideration.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. In essence, silence would be an acceptance if there was no response. Is that correct? Is that to streamline the process? Is that the rationale? If the minister could maybe illuminate that.

Hon. B. Bennett: This provision deals only with the dispute resolution portion of this overall process. There is already a provision in the Local Government Act that indicates what the member is concerned about — that local governments, if they are silent on some aspect of a regional growth strategy…. If they don't object, their silence is assumed under legislation currently — we're not changing that — to be agreement.

Section 112 approved.

On section 113.

S. Fraser: On section 113, section 867 of the Local Government Act. If I'm not mistaken, the section requires the establishment of an intergovernmental advisory committee if there is a proposed amendment to the regional growth strategy that is not considered a minor amendment. I guess if that's the case…. I'm just curious: is there a change in definition required for "minor amendment"? Is there something being perceived there?

Then I guess my next thing would be: with this requirement, would there not be costs associated with this to the municipal government, to local government? I may have a follow-up depending on the answer.

Hon. B. Bennett: This amendment goes only to situations where there has been a major amendment proposed by a local government or a group of local governments to a regional growth strategy. If there is a major amendment proposed to a regional growth strategy and if enough time has passed since the regional growth strategy was put into place, there may well not be one of these advisory committees in place. So there would be a need to establish that advisory committee, given that this is a major amendment being proposed.

It's not unusual. It's just basically cleaning up the legislation and enabling the creation of another advisory committee down the road if there is a major amendment to the regional growth strategy proposed.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Again, the makeup of this committee — I'm just not clear. Would there be associated costs with such a committee, administrative or such? I note that in the Jordan River properties issue we've had growth strategies that have been in place, and then outside influences have affected those growth strategies.

[1820]

I'm just curious. Will that precipitate the forming of this committee, and will the municipal government, the local government or the regional district government then be required to…? Will it cost them money? I don't need to know an amount, but could this be cost prohibitive for some smaller communities or regional districts?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think that, as critic, I admire the member's bird-dogging on behalf of local government to ensure that unnecessary costs aren't created. However, in this situation, this is a scenario where local government has proposed a major amendment to the regional growth strategy. This is not something that's being caused by the province or the public, necessarily.

This is something that local government has come along, or at least some members of a regional district, and said: "We would like to make a major amendment to the regional growth strategy." We are saying in response to that: "Well, that does happen sometimes. These regional growth strategies have been around for a few years now. There are major amendments being proposed. We better give them the legislative authority to create this advisory committee."

Will there be a cost to that? That's up to the local governments in terms of how they want to create the advisory committee. But this is driven by the local governments, not by the province.

Section 113 approved.

On section 114.

S. Fraser: There are a few changes I need some clarification on. These are dealing with phased-in subdivisions. I've seen this certainly at the local level, and some of this can be confusing for both developers and, certainly, the local governments involved and their planning processes.

If I'm not mistaken, this would prohibit local government from making substantial bylaw changes — or zoning, I guess too — after an agreement for a phased-in subdivision development has been reached. If I'm interpreting that right, what consultation happened, and how did it happen with local governments? Was that done
[ Page 5140 ]
through maybe the UBCM or local government agency associations? I'd like some clarification.

Hon. B. Bennett: In terms of the consultation on this series of amendments, the UBCM was consulted, and the consultation was considerable, I think. We don't actually do anything in this ministry, it seems, without talking with the UBCM at some length. That's our practice, and that's been the practice of, I think, probably both sides of the House, whoever has had this ministry.

In terms of the member's question about any impact on local governments' capacity to change zoning, this amendment doesn't affect that. This amendment doesn't affect the local governments' capacity to zone. What it does is it adds the capacity or it includes subdivision servicing as an element that can't be changed under the terms of the phased development agreement. It can be changed, but it's more difficult, I guess, to change.

Presuming I might know where the member might go with his questions, this series of provisions is all about providing certainty for the folks who invest in subdivisions and who enter into a legal agreement with local government that's known as a phased development agreement. There are already provisions dealing with zoning. We're proposing with this amendment to add subdivision servicing into the legislation.

S. Fraser: I don't have the exact wording here — that the committee rise and report progress.

The Chair: And ask leave to sit again.

S. Fraser: Yes.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:27 p.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,333,693,000 (continued).

M. Elmore: A question to the minister and staff, if the minister could run me through again. I was adding the numbers up.

I understand that the current child care budget is $300 million this year. Similarly, in 2009 it was $300 million. I have the budget items as CCOF for $65 million, which is static, the same from last year of $65 million; subsidy up to $154.2 million this year; SCD to $58 million; for a total of $277.2 million. Then the federal contribution is $35.1 million; the referral and resource, $9.6 million this year under the federal component; and under major capital, $1.1 million — part of the federal breakdown.

I was wondering if that's correct. Also, under the federal portion, what are the other line items? Specifically, the big line items would be subsidy and CCOF that I don't have for the federal component. Then is that complete in terms of the $300 million budget for the child care budget this year?

[1430]

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to 2010-2011, I will give you the breakdown as to how we reach the $300 million figure. For child care subsidy the figure is $154.23 million. I'm rounding to the second decimal. For the child care operating funding it is $65.04 million. For CCRR, our child care resource and referral, it is $330,000. Grants associated with that are $1.1 million.

In the regions the regional component of child care resource and referral is a further $9.31 million, and there are other regional costs which are actually small enough, probably not worth mentioning — about $6,000. Then there is approximately $11.1 million in administration that represents things like the call centre operations, the IT that's managed through that and various other matters related to operating the subsidy and CCOF program.

In addition to that is the $58 million for supported child development, and that, all told, gets one to $300
[ Page 5141 ]
million. It compares over last year with a total of $293 million, the $300 million being the closest round figure that we've been using to approximate.

As far as the federal money, we actually don't break it out, because it is provided to us as a single transfer. All of that budget is provided solely to the child care budget. It isn't used in any other area of our budget.

[1435]

M. Elmore: So if I understand it, the federal money is transferred just as a block into the funding. I understand that. I guess that's a different approach, because last year we did get a breakdown for the federal money. But my question also in terms of…. Thank you for the current breakdown.

Last year the total was $293 million. Is that correct? Okay, and this year it's $300 million. My question is: in terms of the major and…? Oh, so the grants. That's the $1.1 million. That's the major and minor grants there. Thank you very much for explaining that.

My next question has to do with…. Last week we had talked about the need for child care spaces in British Columbia, parents looking for spaces, and also the issue of affordability and the associated benefits of a child care–early learning system in British Columbia in terms of supporting children, supporting families, allowing parents to have access to the workforce, the benefits to the economy and support for employers in terms of being able to attract and retain qualified staff.

My understanding is that currently there is not a child care plan in British Columbia in terms of a plan to address the shortage of spaces and the need to expand spaces. As well, my understanding is that the early childhood development framework that was being developed has been shelved and is not going forward.

Recognizing that there is a need for child care and early learning spaces in British Columbia, and given that this need is also reinforced by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce…. It passed a resolution stating that quality child care is no longer just a social issue.

"The business community of B.C. now views child care as one of the key factors in addressing the labour shortage in B.C. The ability to recruit and retain workers in all industry sectors is underpinned with the workers' ability to secure quality child care that meets their needs. A comprehensive strategic plan for the child care system in B.C. is critical to staying competitive in today's global economy."

My question is: what steps are being taken to address the need for a comprehensive child care–early learning program?

[1440]

Hon. M. Polak: As we canvassed previously, the framework that government had proposed has been put on hold as a result of some very difficult economic times. I'm sure we've all seen examples of that across government, where we've had to pull back on initiatives that would take new money. We certainly look forward to a time when revenues in government return and we can continue our attention to that.

It's important to note, though, that we now have more than 90,000 licensed child care spaces in British Columbia. Since 2007 alone we've provided $12.5 million, which resulted in the creation of 3,408 spaces just in that time period alone.

Also important to note is that in British Columbia we provide the child care operating funding to any spaces that open. There is no cap on that, and that child care operating funding is also provided to family spaces as well.

M. Elmore: I'd like to go back to the issue of the numbers and the total child care budget. My question is just to clarify. In 2009 the total budget spent was $293 million, and it was a projected $300 million, so that's a $7 million shortfall. Was the $7 million shortfall from 2009 attributed to 2010-11 to account for the $6 million increase in the subsidy and the supported child development increase of $1 million this year? Just for clarification.

[1445]

Hon. M. Polak: Our projected budget for '09-10 was $293.4 million, and our expenditures were $293.3 million.

M. Elmore: My question is with regards to the issue of a framework and a plan. First of all, in terms of the numbers and the available spaces in British Columbia, there are only licensed spaces available for 20 percent of children seeking licensed spaces here in British Columbia. For infants it's even lower, 8 percent. It speaks to the severe shortage in terms of spaces that are available, on that point.

In terms of an early childhood development plan, I just want to make the point that it is really echoed from the business community and that it has been substantiated from numerous research papers and, I think, complemented comprehensively in terms of the literature from the majority of jurisdictions around the world in terms of the economic benefits.

I think that case is growing. Certainly, we're seeing more momentum behind that now in terms of the arguments in support from the business community coming forward and the advantages of investing in child care and early learning investments on a number of different levels — number one, in terms of supporting children.

While we're discussing the economic benefits of investing in an early childhood and learning program, I also want to reiterate that I think that the right of children to quality care, to universal care, in their early years is a fundamental right. They're entitled to that. But also
[ Page 5142 ]
accepting the perspective, particularly from the business community, and the arguments in terms of the benefits to the economy, I think is also another important consideration.

The points in terms of the benefits of adopting this plan and putting into practice a framework of early childhood development and implementing that…. I think the benefits in terms of supporting children and supporting their early development, their ability to progress through the education system and improve their chances of graduation and, also, access to post-secondary education can't be understated.

So there are two angles to that: one, their ability to participate fully in their life and have all the opportunities and potentials in terms of access to post-secondary education and a good-paying job once they graduate high school and post-secondary studies; and two, the aspect of savings, as well, in that children who have decreased vulnerability, who are supported early on in their early years in terms of access to these quality services take less of a toll in terms of our child care, our health care system and our other social services. It's been documented.

The benefits of investing in a system now…. Certainly, we've seen the employment multiplier. It's one of the most efficient industries and sectors, arguably the most, in terms of generating employment, the economic multiplier on a number of different angles into the local economies. The economic multiplier often….

[1450]

Funds that are spent in the early childhood education system stay in those local communities, as well as the investment payback. It's been noted and documented that there are significant returns on investment in the long term to the scale of $6 returned for every dollar invested.

Those are the results from the human early learning partnership at UBC and also the accumulative contributing factor of growth in GDP. That's attributed to greater participation in the workforce, higher education and ability for children to access post-secondary education. That's the argument that the business community puts forward in terms of improved productivity in our workforce — productivity in terms of greater investment in our social capital or greater investment in people — and that leads to innovation and increased productivity in the economy.

Also, increased competitiveness of our economy is particularly important, as we are seeing a shift in terms of our traditional economy away from high value to lower value and more of a knowledge-based economy. It's expected that now nearly 85 percent of jobs within the next ten years will require some degree of post-secondary education. These are all factors that speak to the necessity, the need, the urgency and the benefits in terms of investments in a child care and early learning system, and also the argument in favour of bringing the plan off the shelf and investing in that — that it is worthwhile and certainly adds value to that investment.

I'll ask the minister what plans she has in place in the ministry in terms of addressing the critical issues that have been raised and also the really substantial benefits to the economy.

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, we absolutely agree that there is a huge return on investment when it comes to the kind of money that governments put into early childhood development, put into child care, put into programs that circle around prevention and early intervention for children — huge savings for government, huge benefits for society. That's precisely why it was our government that set the goal in place to reduce the level of childhood vulnerabilities by 15 percent by 2015.

That's the reason we provide funding to the human early learning partnership for their work with the early development instrument. Those are very important pieces of work, and that's why we fund them. It's also the reason we've made new investments into full-day kindergarten, into StrongStart B.C. It's the reason that this year alone, even in very constrained budget times, we will be spending more than a billion dollars on early childhood development, child care and services to children and youth with special needs.

In terms of access, I think it's clear that government recognizes the importance of access for those of low and moderate income. This is precisely the reason why, in the midst of very many other ministries seeing reductions to their budgets, our ministry saw an increase. In fact, there will be an increase over the next three years of $26 million directly into child care.

I think our commitment certainly shows in the choices that we've made in investing in these kinds of new programs and also in continuing to increase the support to the level of programming that we provide now.

[1455]

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister. Certainly, there are positive developments — the implementation of all-day kindergarten, and I hear positive feedback from the StrongStart program.

The issue that's raised around that…. Those are terrific programs for children and their families to access. The challenge is that the all-day kindergarten is from nine to three, and if a parent is working, it's difficult in terms of…. Often they need the before and after component of it in terms of being able to ensure that their child is looked after while they're working.

Also in terms of the StrongStart program, it's a company program — very positive feedback in terms of families who are able to access those services. I think that the need, certainly, for the majority of parents and families working is a comprehensive system in terms of needing to find spaces to care for their children while they're working during the workday.
[ Page 5143 ]

So I think that that is one of the biggest priorities, certainly, that's facing families and children in British Columbia that needs to be addressed, and I still haven't heard or been convinced in terms of the steps being taken towards addressing those concerns.

Also in terms of the level of investment, just noting that British Columbia — Canada…. We rank last in terms of the OECD countries in terms of our investment as a portion of the GDP. That's quite a surprising, I guess, number. But comparing ourselves to these other jurisdictions…. I think that that's also the bigger picture that we have to keep in mind — that there's certainly a bigger challenge.

The recommendation from UNICEF and also from the European Union is recommending that an adequate funding level for early learning and child care programs approaches about 1 percent of the total GDP. Currently, we're about a quarter of that. So that's just in terms of the relative comparison of our level of investment in early learning and child care.

Just to summarize: my question's in terms of the need of a program to address the needs of working parents in particular. I'd appreciate some clarification on that matter.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

[1500]

Hon. M. Polak: Well, certainly, with respect to full-day kindergarten, StrongStart, child care, the approach we've taken as government is that this is part of creating a wraparound, integrated service for parents. So it is all a part of one philosophy that says that we shouldn't be siloing our services to children in only one ministry. When it comes to that evolution of policy and how we implement full-day K and, in the future, preschool programs for four- and three-year-olds, we're constantly monitoring and making the kinds of policy changes that make it easier for parents.

A really good example of that is the change we made to qualification for funding for children under the age of six. It was brought to our attention that this was a hardship for parents whose child, during the kindergarten year, may turn six and yet still be in need of the before-and-after-school care that represented that of an under-six-year-old child. We made the modification to policy so that those families would qualify for under-six funding, in spite of the fact that the child turned six during the school year.

That's one example, but it's an example that shows the way in which we attempt to respond cross-ministry as things change and as we must meet the needs of changing family structures and changing family choices.

Another very strong component of this is that we are providing for StrongStart, full-day kindergarten, various options around before-school and after-school care in a context of choice. These should be options that are available when families choose to have them available. We do, as I've said, provide a major capital program during budget years when we have that money available.

We don't this year. Nevertheless, our record on creating spaces is actually quite successful. Since 2001 we've now managed to reach the stage where we have more than 90,000 licensed funded spaces available. If you take a look at the investment just since 2007 until now, that amounts to $12.5 million and the creation of 3,408 spaces just in that time alone.

M. Elmore: The issue and the reality for working parents is…. I still don't hear an answer to that in terms of what parents are supposed to do if they're looking for child care for their child and if they need that type of service throughout the workday. I'm not hearing any answer to that in terms of what the plan is to address the grave shortage of spaces.

Only 20 percent of children seeking licensed spaces have access to that and 8 percent for infants, so I was wondering if the minister has more to say, particularly on the issue of working parents, who typically need coverage from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. What options are available to them, and what can they look forward to in terms of alleviating the grave crisis that they face in the shortage of spaces and licensed, affordable and quality options for their child care needs throughout their day, their workday?

[1505]

Hon. M. Polak: I think it's important to note that government capital money is not the only money that provides for child care spaces. In fact, I'd argue it's probably a fairly small portion of that.

In British Columbia we have not embraced a government-run universal child care program. What we have done is decide that we would support parents' access to child care through providing child care operating funding. Again, that is provided without a cap. Whatever space is open, we provide funding.

We also provide for those who are of low and modest income through the subsidy program, and we provide capital funding when we have that available.

We also provide a flexible system. When one asks what parents can do if they're not locating the licensed spaces that they wish…. First of all, they can contact the child care resource and referral agency in their area. They are located around the province, and they are very well able to assist families in locating spaces in their area.

Also in British Columbia they have the option of utilizing licence-not-required care for their child. That can be purchased in their own home. They can hire someone to look after their child, and if they do not have income sufficient to provide for that on their own, they too are eligible for the child care subsidy. The licence-not-
[ Page 5144 ]
required spaces are in addition to the 90,000 licensed funded spaces throughout the province.

There are very many options for parents with families in British Columbia. We continue to believe that the most important thing we can do is respond to the changing nature of families' child care needs and ensure that we meet those needs with an array of choices that parents are able to make themselves, and to support that financially.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister. What I'm hearing is that basically there are a number of options and choices in terms of trying to avail of adequate options — contacting resource and referral services.

[1510]

The problem remains that if there aren't adequate spaces available, then it's basically an exercise in futility in terms of being put on wait-lists for a number of years; being referred to spaces that aren't available, that have wait-lists; and also the issue of affordability, which currently is also in a crisis situation here in British Columbia with child care accounting now for the second-highest expenditure in families' budgets following housing. That's a reality.

I'm hearing, in terms of concrete measures being taken to address the shortage of spaces, that parents cannot look for much amelioration or more options in terms of being able to access more spaces, which fundamentally is the underlying issue in terms of access to child care and early learning spaces.

I'd like to ask a question in terms of the…. Well, first of all, we don't have a child care plan, a plan to expand spaces. The early childhood development plan — the framework has been shelved, I've heard. The issue is that…. I'd like to hear the minister's response in terms of the other jurisdictions. Ontario is the newest one.

Pretty much a comprehensive approach, certainly throughout the OECD countries, is to combine and merge child care and early learning. So it's to bring together the ideas of providing care for children, but also it's an opportunity to support them in a learning environment — and not necessarily, you know, how we think of learning in terms of being only school-ready but also to support infants and young children in terms of their overall development.

That is now pretty much a consistent line of thought in the area of child care and early learning — to bring those two together and, in terms of a policy framework, to implement programs within that framework. I'm interested to hear the minister's views on that.

Hon. M. Polak: To the question around Ontario's approach, that is precisely the approach we are taking as we embark on the implementation of full-day kindergarten, our StrongStart programs. We have increasing spaces in the StrongStart programs again this year. We are also looking to implement preschool programs for three- and four-year-olds. All of that is being planned in partnership, not only with the Ministry of Education but also involving the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[1515]

With respect to the struggles parents have in locating day care spaces, there are some things that are important to note, I think. First and foremost, a licence-not-required option is a very important option in British Columbia. It's very important, from what we hear from families, and it's a huge area of flexibility for parents who aren't able to locate licensed spaces in their area. The fact that we are able to provide a subsidy for those families who are utilizing a licence-not-required option is a huge benefit to families who live in British Columbia.

I also want to make a point about wait-lists. While I agree that it is a struggle for parents to locate day care, we can be fairly confident that the wait-list information we receive from any facility is not accurate. That is because parents tend to enrol their child in a number of different child care facilities while they are awaiting a response.

There is no way of disaggregating that information such that we can be confident at all that these are individual parent requests as opposed to being replicated three, four or five times throughout the system. So it is very difficult to judge anything from the wait-lists that we see from agencies.

In terms of government's approach to meeting the needs of parents during these difficult times, again I want to point out to the member that in a time when other ministry budgets are seeing quite extensive reductions in order to manage our fiscal house, nevertheless, in the Ministry of Children and Family Development we are seeing a $26 million increase in the next three years to our child care budget.

With regard to spaces, it's also important to note that private and not-for-profit spaces regularly open in British Columbia without any capital budget coming from government, and we fund those when they open. There is no cap on those — very important policy decisions that have been made by this government to support access to child care in B.C.

M. Elmore: I'm a little bit surprised to hear the comparison of the approach here in British Columbia and the approach taken in Ontario — a couple of fundamental differences, I think. In terms of, first, the policy framework, they have taken a comprehensive policy framework integrating early childhood education and care. It is a substantial policy shift, integrating those components. It's a significant shift.

The second issue is that the legislation was passed in terms of bringing in that policy framework. In terms of the organization, now, it's being implemented. They've
[ Page 5145 ]
consolidated a section under the early learning division under the Ministry of Education in an attempt to consolidate the services that were previously…. Child care and early learning were scattered through a number of different ministries — Ministry of Children and Families, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health. Those are a couple of the developments in trying to improve the efficiency and also improve the coordination and the provision of child care and early learning.

Those are a couple of differences, I think, in the approach that we are taking here in British Columbia. I'm hoping that we will be moving towards that direction.

In terms of an appraisal of research that's being conducted on national jurisdictions in assessing the effectiveness of their child care and early learning systems, it has come out as a pretty consistent recommendation that a policy framework combining and merging child care and early learning is beneficial in terms of an efficient system. That has also been one of the recommendations in consolidating those programs and how the service is provided.

I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on that.

[1520]

Hon. M. Polak: Well, certainly, we always look forward to increasing our investments in children and in families as revenues increase and return over the coming years. Nevertheless, this year, in a tight economic situation, we are investing more than a billion dollars this year alone in early childhood development, in child care and in service to children and youth with special needs.

At this time we are emphasizing service to families. I recognize that, for Ontario, they felt there was a need to restructure in order to provide the kinds of services such as full-day kindergarten. In British Columbia we do not feel that there's a need for us to do that. We've actually been working very well across MCFD and the Ministry of Education, and we will continue to do that as we fully implement full-day kindergarten and as we implement preschool for three- and four-year-olds.

We have found this to be a very positive working relationship. I dare say that parents out there who are looking for service and who are looking for those supports for their children are far more interested in what's happening on the ground than in whether or not, as the result of a tight budget year, we were able to deliver on a specific report or policy plan.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister. I think the point…. Number one, in terms of even the idea of having a plan, is that it's what's implemented. In terms of what parents see on the ground, that's the deliverable, and that's the responsibility of the ministry — addressing all of these issues, that it be done in a systematic and efficient way and that there are actually targets and timelines to be able to measure that.

I think that, certainly, it's an issue that's been raised to me by advocates, by providers and, I think, pretty much by researchers and folks who are concerned about these issues — that this is an important concern. I think it speaks to the reality of delivering these services on the ground. It speaks to the ability to see these steps being taken and actually having services delivered that parents are able to access.

I know we've gone back and forth in terms of the debate on the numbers. It's shocking, in Canada and also British Columbia, that we have the lowest level of investment in child care and early learning, falling well below the average and well below the recommended amount from UNICEF and also the European Union. That is, I think, a challenge for us to, I guess, acknowledge and also to move forward on.

I'd like to also ask a question of the minister — if she could tell me what steps are being taken to consult with parents, providers and advocates on the issues of child care, on the issues of early learning and also on the issues of the implementation of the all-day kindergarten. It's been reported to me that there are concerns of service providers — disruption to their day, in terms of having spots open if they previously had children in their programs.

[1525]

Transitioning now, going into all-day kindergarten, creates these extra spots, and providers are scrambling in terms of meeting that and adapting to that transition.

I would appreciate hearing from the minister on steps being taken in terms of a consultation on that issue, and also consultation more broadly with parents, providers and advocates.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: First, just to address some of the comments around the desire for a plan in British Columbia, I have to point out that currently we have targets and timelines, and they are being met. There is coordination taking place. There is joint planning occurring across ministry, and although there may not be a plan in place, I would argue, as a poet might, that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The fact that these things are occurring and are being accomplished is what is truly important to parents, not whether it is called a cross-ministry child care plan.

With respect to consultations, the early learning agency actually conducted what were, I would imagine, the most extensive consultations. They took about a year before they produced their report in the spring of '09, and that included parents and providers and advocates.

[1530]
[ Page 5146 ]

In addition to that, in the ministry we have the Provincial Child Care Council. They are also an organization made up of parents, of providers. There is membership from the human early learning partnership. They currently have been given some tasks by the ministry.

They are taking a look at some very important policy areas, that of ECE human resources strategies. We've asked them to consider and report back to us with respect to opportunities for child care that are presented by the full-day kindergarten implementation and opportunities for child care presented by the full-day pre-kindergarten and preschool implementation.

We work very closely to receive advice from them. They are a statutory organization, and we continue to work closely with them. They meet approximately one or two times in a fiscal year, but it depends on the nature of the work that they are engaged in.

M. Elmore: My next question is…. When we were talking last week about the provision of new child care spaces in British Columbia, the minister mentioned that she thought it was the private sector that was responsible for the creation of new child care spaces.

I'm just interested to hear from the minister, because it appears that, number one, there's a chronic shortage and a grave need for new spaces. Relying on the private sector hasn't shown to be effective in terms of meeting that need. Certainly, it hasn't come forward in terms of creating those spaces.

So I'm interested to hear, specifically, more detail around that in terms of the minister's view on how to accomplish this goal. Also, what studies or what examples from other jurisdictions, in terms of…? What other countries, or even other provinces, other states have successfully relied on such an approach?

Also, is she aware of some of the challenges that countries relying on big-box corporate child care face — particularly the example in Australia with the ABC Learning model? In Australia there were significant child care facilities that were created, but once the company filed for bankruptcy, it was basically a crisis.

I'm interested to hear just more specific plans around that, and also if there's evidence-based research supporting that view and those plans.

[1535]

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, private and not-for-profit organizations regularly open child care spaces without utilizing any government capital money, in particular when they're certain of operating funding. As I've said before, in British Columbia they can be certain of that because we don't have a cap on that. When they open spaces, we provide the child care operating funding.

We do provide capital funding in budget years when it's available. In this year it isn't, but we're certainly looking forward to the opportunity to continue to invest. We've provided quite sizeable investments in the past — again, since 2007 alone, $12.5 million, which has created 3,408 spaces.

We don't plan, as government, with respect to the inclusion of big-box day care, as it's been called, or the exclusion of it. We do, as government, control the licensing requirements that ensure that all licensed child care facilities meet very stringent standards and provide very high-quality child care for the children that are in their charge.

We in British Columbia do not, as a government, provide child care. We fund it. It is important to recognize that in terms of the decisions around what type of child care might be available in a community, those are policy decisions that need to involve far more than just government determining what should be available or shouldn't. There is involvement of communities. There is involvement of families.

There's involvement of government in terms of licensing and funding, but it really is a much broader societal issue and not one that government will be stepping in to determine on behalf of communities.

What we do is provide that there is an adequate licensing regime to ensure high-quality and stringent requirements, to ensure that there is funding there to support operating and also to ensure that there is access for those of a low or moderate income.

M. Elmore: I'd just like to note that at a recent symposium in Vancouver on inspiring innovation in early learning and care, the question was asked…. We had a business panel in terms of funding for a comprehensive child care and early learning system in B.C.

It was noted in the response from Virginia Greene from the B.C. Business Council that the private sector hasn't picked it up in terms of providing those spaces that are needed. That speaks to some of the challenges around the financing of child care and early learning system.

I just have one question in terms of some specific cuts and questions that came forward to me from some agencies. Are there any current initiatives underway that the government is involved in with this so-called corporate big-box child care?

Hon. M. Polak: No.

M. Elmore: I just have my last question, and then my colleague here has a couple of questions he'd like to ask.

I've had some questions come forward from a few providers in day care centres, and I'd just like to put them on the record and bring those forward. The first one is the request to restore the funding cuts to the Options Child and Family Centre, located at Lansdowne high school; and Higgins House, located at Victoria High.

It's been noted that it's a very effective program supporting teenage mothers. Research that the ministry
[ Page 5147 ]
commissioned has shown that it's a very cost-effective program to support teenage mothers in terms of completing their high school graduation and allowing them a better start in life. So asking that those funding cuts be reversed.

Also, I've had a request come forward from Cari's Infant and Toddler Centre in Campbell River. They're concerned about the issue of affordability and high parent fees, and that subsidies are not adequate.

[1540]

I've also had a request from the Trail and District Daycare Society, the Sunshine Children's Centre. They're concerned about…. They see a difficulty of wait-lists in their area and also the lack of skilled early childhood educators due to low wages — so the difficulty of retaining qualified workers.

The Kamloops Christian child care facility has questions. We've canvassed them. I can send the transcripts. They're concerned about lack of a plan in terms of child care and early learning in British Columbia. That's their concern.

The Champlain Heights day care. They currently are seeking a provider. They don't have an operator. The problem is that the parks board has withdrawn as an operator. So number one, they're seeking an operator. They're concerned about being faced with higher rental fees. Currently their space is rent-free, but in terms of the cuts to school boards, there's concern that the parks board may have to raise the rent. That's an issue of sustaining their facility.

The Vancouver Society of Children's Centres is concerned about the 50 percent cuts to gaming grants. They're very concerned about the future of their programs and the possible impact of fees increasing and being put on to parents.

Then, also, the concern around the day cares in Maple Ridge seeking adequate space to continue their services.

So those are the questions that have come forward to me that I said I would bring forward. I can either hear back from them at another time — whatever you wish.

Then my colleague has a couple questions.

[1545]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll try to quickly go through the ones that I can provide an answer for. There are a couple that we'll need to just take a further look at. With respect to Higgins House, the funding for their day care spaces has remained the same. They also, through those young ladies, receive an enhanced level of child care subsidy. They also retain some of the funding for the parent program that was affected by the reduction.

Staff have met with Higgins House, had a very positive meeting with them, and Higgins House is very cooperative around the work that we will be doing to ensure that they continue operating in the coming year. Again, nothing has changed in terms of the funding for their day care spaces or their enhanced subsidy. The only reduction was to a very basic parenting skills program that offered assistance and teaching with respect to feeding and diapering and very basic parenting skills. Again, it hasn't been eliminated, only reduced.

With respect to concerns expressed around the infant toddler centre about subsidy, I think there are some things important to note about subsidy. If you go back to 2005, we increased the income threshold for children under six to $38,000. In 2006 we also took the step, when the federal government decided to shift the way in which they funded…. We not only protected the child care subsidy program 100 percent, but we announced that the $100 monthly universal child care benefit would not be included when calculating a family's provincial subsidy payment.

Also, in terms of the time and response for parents, we've now reduced our time it takes for subsidy applications — down from four to six weeks to what is now about four or five days. We've also simplified the application process. What was a 32-page subsidy application in 2006 has been brought down to a three-page application.

We also increased the maximum subsidy rate for out-of-school child care in 2007 from $173 to $200 a month, because we knew that that more accurately reflected some of the median costs of care. We made changes, as I spoke about earlier, with respect to kindergarten children who turn age six in the school year so that they would still be covered. Then further, in 2008 we made the decision to exempt the climate action dividend for parents from their income calculation as well. We've continued to support the subsidy and continued to expand it as the years have gone on.

With respect to wait-lists, I've already commented on some of the challenges we have in interpreting wait-lists.

With respect to ECEs and their wages, we recognize that that's a challenge. It's one of the reasons that we have retained CCOF as an important part of what we do. We feel that by contributing to the operating funding of child care, that gives at least a bit of an option for them to have some certainty around the money that they're receiving. Nevertheless, it is up to operators to determine what they are going to pay to early childhood educators.

We've already discussed a plan with respect to the issue of an operator being needed and issues of the parks board perhaps raising the rents on that organization. We'll have to look into that.

Insofar as the gaming grants, I'm assuming that you were referring to gaming grants that child care facilities would receive. I can tell you that out of the approximately 4,800 providers in British Columbia, only about
[ Page 5148 ]
50 of those access child care gaming grants — so not a significant impact.

Again, with the Maple Ridge schools, I know that in the case of at least one of those, it was the result of a school closure and that the space was therefore no longer going to be available. We can get you further detail with respect to that as well.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister and staff for being here. My first question has to do with ministry staffing. Can the minister advise on whether or not all district offices are fully staffed with child protection social workers?

[1550]

Hon. M. Polak: Up until recently, in the north for example, we've had about 98 percent full coverage in terms of our staffing. It is not up there right now. However, that is ongoing. I'm sure the member is aware of ongoing challenges of recruitment and retention in those areas.

With respect to the various areas where we are challenged, that would be the north, some rural Interior areas. There is a remote community in Vancouver Coastal that we have ongoing challenges with as well as some places on the north Island. But as a result of our work to recruit and retain employees across the Peace, not just child protection social workers, we have not had a circumstance where our child protection services were not covered.

We've been able to manage within the staffing that we do have available, and we continue to actively recruit. In fact, at the beginning of January '09 in terms of our total of direct child welfare service providers, we finished the year with a small net increase of about 17. So we are experiencing challenges. I believe as a ministry we probably always will in that area. But certainly, we're still at a relatively high rate of filling those vacancies.

[1555]

N. Simons: Would the ministry be willing to provide MARS statistics on compliance with practice standards to back up the statements that she made? I'd look forward to seeing those.

When staffing is at 98 percent capacity, does that include filling in when there's maternity leave, sick leave or any other leave? In other words, are there auxiliaries backing those up? In terms of practical office staff…. The reason I ask is because I've heard from many regions where, in fact, staffing may look on the books to be close to full, but those could be people who are on long-term leaves and such. It would be helpful if we had the practice standards, the statistics on adherence to practice standards. That would be most helpful.

Just in the interests of time, can the minister inform this committee how many grievances have been filed by staff over workload issues in the past year?

Hon. M. Polak: Yeah, we can provide the audit results to you so that you can have that. With respect to covering of leaves and LTDs, we have a number of different strategies we've put in place to manage those. For example, we're staggering staff holidays. That way we minimize the kind of caseload impact that there is and make sure that there's continuity with cases.

We're also monitoring the staffing in local offices and redeploying staff as we see the needs arise where there might be critical staff shortages. We are also trying to ensure that our existing float staff are being utilized according to where we see critical needs arising and also hiring new social workers to staff some critical short-term vacancies. So that would be where you'd see the bulk of our use of auxiliary employees.

With respect to workload grievances, we're only aware of one appendix 4 right now. We'll check back and confirm that to you, but we're only aware of one right now.

N. Simons: When the minister says that she has no problem releasing the audits, I'm wondering if those are in fact the MARS statistics or if they've discontinued the use of those methods of collecting data.

[1600]

The staggering of holidays and redeploying staff indicate to me that we have this problem with staffing. I'm wondering if the current hiring, the change in policy in terms of provincial hiring, has had any impact, negative or positive, on ministry offices when they went to the…. I don't know if there's a term for it, but I know the minister knows what I'm talking about. I'm just wondering if there's a before-and-after picture on that.

In the interest of time, as I mentioned earlier, I'll try to sort of pack a few questions in. I've just heard a lot of concerns about staffing and lack of coverage.

I guess those were my questions.

Hon. M. Polak: No, the audit results would not be available through MARS, and I'm advised they actually never have been. We can provide you with the summary audit results, if that's what you wish, but no, they won't be available through MARS.

With respect to the provincial hiring through the Public Service Agency, the place that that did have an impact on us initially was with respect to our ability to post externally. We raised that with the PSA, and they quite happily — happily for us — have responded by recognizing that MCFD does have some significant differences at play, so they are allowing us to post externally where we need to.

N. Simons: Just for the record, then, I would appreciate the MARS and the audit results.

S. Simpson: I just have one issue that I'd like to canvass a little bit with the minister. I know time is short.
[ Page 5149 ]

In estimates for Housing and Social Development we had a fairly lengthy discussion around the impacts around the municipal pension plan enrolment for community social service organizations. As the minister will know, the majority of those employees probably fall under CLBC.

There has now been an agreement reached there with CLBC and those agencies, which the Minister of Housing and Social Development confirmed would bring new dollars to the table to fund the employer share of the municipal pension plan as it affects those CLBC employees.

[1605]

The minister will know — I'm sure that she is aware — that when the collective agreement was reached in 2006, all of those agencies that were affected under the social service employers association asked for and received an assurance — I believe it was from Mr. van Iersel, who was the MCFD deputy at the time — that there would be support on the employer share of funds. That seems to have been an agreement reached.

Now as it affects the CLBC group, there is still a significant minority of those employees who work for agencies that are funded through MCFD. Could the minister tell us what the state of discussions is currently about whether a comparable agreement is being reached or has been reached in terms of the employer share for those agencies in the municipal pension plan?

Hon. M. Polak: Those agencies that are within the MCFD sphere are also members of CSSEA, so the approach is the same within MCFD as has been outlined through Housing and Social Development with CLBC. I have met with the Federation of Community Social Services agencies, and that has been explained to them as well. But it is the same approach.

S. Simpson: To be clear, in the case of the CLBC groups, new money was applied through CLBC. The money was directed through CLBC, but there were new dollars. The Minister of Housing and Social Development, when we explored this in those estimates…. They negotiated. New dollars were on the table. So whatever RRSP money those organizations had, obviously, went into the contribution, but then additional dollars would be applied so that those organizations would be kept whole and so that the reserves they had — most of which are committed or at least obliged accounting reserves — wouldn't be touched. They got new dollars.

Could the minister tell us: will those MCFD organizations, as she says…? Will there be new dollars there, over and above their current funding, that will allow them to cover the employer share for the pension plan, accepting of course that any RRSP dollars or things will be all folded into that? Will they get new dollars so they're not out of pocket additional money?

Hon. M. Polak: Yeah. To be clear, the net incremental costs of implementing the MPP will be covered by government, and as the member has outlined, that means that the RRSP money will be used first. If there are any reserves that are available to be used, certainly they would be utilized. We would work with individual agencies to determine what that might be, because as the member noted, in some cases that money has already been spoken for.

This is an all-of-government approach, and as such, that new money will come from the Ministry of Finance and through to the ministries involved. It's not something that would be represented as a line item in our current budget.

[1610]

Our approach, the same as Housing and Social Development, is that once it's determined what those amounts would be, then that would be something that across government we would work to have provided through the Ministry of Finance to our ministries. Again, the commitment is there that we will fund the net incremental costs of the municipal pension plan.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's answer. I have one last question on this, and then I'll be done.

We know that it's now in place. The plan has been implemented. The agencies or organizations are now paying the employer share. The plan is now in play. So has that agreement been reached? Has there been an agreement with those individual agencies so they know what they're paying and they know what their situation is after RRSPs or this question of surpluses, so they know what their circumstances are? Has that all been reached, and is it in play? And if it hasn't been reached, when does the minister anticipate that the final plans for those agencies will be in place?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, the process is ongoing, because employees have until the end of June or early July to make the decision as to whether or not they will opt in or opt out of the municipal pension plan. At that point we will then be able to calculate what the impact is in terms of budget. Then we can do the work to determine what that incremental cost will be to agencies, and then we can make the decision as to how much will be allotted to each one.

Again, part of that is an individual process where we work with agencies to determine the extent of their reserves and the availability of them and also calculate their amounts with respect to their RRSP. But again, full commitment to fund the net incremental increases that are faced by agencies as a result of the MPP. The process is ongoing, in particular until we determine the degree to which employees have enrolled.

Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,333,693,000 — approved.
[ Page 5150 ]

The Chair: We're going to take a five-minute recess and allow the staff for the Ministry of Environment to get settled, and we'll be back.

The committee recessed from 4:13 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $135,104,000.

Hon. B. Penner: As we get started, I'll mention that I look forward to receiving a list of topics from the Environment critic, so we can help schedule our staff and coordinate their schedules as efficiently as possible and make the best use of everyone's time.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister being brief in his opening remarks on his ministry. We will endeavour to get him, so he can pass on to his staff, some of the lines of questioning that we want to pursue over the next couple of days in various programs and areas of his ministry.

For this afternoon we want to just start on some budget questions that deal with sections of his ministry around staffing and organization and program cuts. I think the thing that was most noticed about Budget 2010 as it pertains to the Ministry of Environment this year was that the ministry, having once been celebrated as a priority of government, is now being considered an area of discretionary expenditure.

It has been cut significantly again this year, even from the September post-election 2009 budget. The numbers that are outlined in the estimates that government provided show a ministry, just a year ago, that was budgeted at $237 million worth of expenditures.

[1620]

We came back to this place six months ago, when we had estimates in the fall, and the budget for the ministry had declined to $189 million. With the budget that is up for debate in the House now, the Ministry of Environment is down to $166 million.

A number of political representatives of the government, MLAs, have argued that this is not putting our environment, our land base, our water, our core environmental services at risk. The opposition wants to be convinced of that through this process. We have questions about how decisions within the ministry are being made to achieve the cuts that have been forced upon it through the Treasury Board process, through the budget-making process of the government. It is a concern.

We have seen some of the programs, which only fairly recently the government pointed to and took political credit for and championed, receive very significant and deep cuts in this budget, including the climate action secretariat, including environmental stewardship, water stewardship.

The compliance activities of the ministry are also cut and the environmental assessment office, as well, at a time when the province has stated in its throne speech that it is speaking actively with Ottawa about making changes to streamline and better coordinate the federal-provincial process. I look forward to asking the minister about how that can be accomplished with less money and less expertise and less personnel.

There is also a focus, I think, that has been lost on a number of programs that could be grouped under climate mitigation. Activities that would incentivize British Columbians, businesses, individuals, residences to reduce their carbon footprints, to reduce carbon gas emissions have been made more difficult.

Some of that is due to the transition to the harmonized sales tax that this government put through into law last Thursday when they enacted closure. Those incentives disappeared with that legislation and the loss of provincial sales tax exemptions and flexibility. I understand that.

It does, however, change, presumably, this ministry's plan in the short and medium term over how to achieve energy efficiency gains and carbon reductions, because there simply is less incentive for British Columbians to make investments, less tax rebates that were once available to them only a short time ago. Only a short time ago that was the subject of a number of press releases from government.

I have to say, as other critics speaking with other ministers in budget estimates have also said, that it is a concern that this ministry and this government have stopped allowing the public to look at a number of performance indicators that have remained steady over decades.

The one that I'm critically concerned about and maybe we'll start the estimates process with today is around full-time-equivalents. How many people are actually working in the ministry? Which branches do they work in? That really is a pretty critical, longstanding, high-level look at what the ministry is able to accomplish — by revealing and being transparent about the human resources that are part of a ministry.

It's unprecedented. It's unheard of. Governments of all political stripes through many, many decades have produced full-time-equivalents as part of the service plan, as part of the budget process. We wish to have some candour from the minister in filling in those blanks and, indeed, to talk about other performance indicator changes within his ministry.

[1625]

As I mentioned, we hope to canvass a number of issues with him. I apologize that this afternoon I can't give him an exact schedule of what we might ask about
[ Page 5151 ]
when. There are a number of members from different parts of the province who wish to ask questions about a variety of issues.

This ministry uniquely touches upon every corner of the province and is valued by all members of the House. Indeed, some of them have some very specific local concerns and some incidents, issues and challenges that they wish to have the minister maybe look into directly and respond to if he has information on those issues.

The parliamentary secretary for climate action is here, and he can relax this afternoon. I don't think we'll get to questions relating to his portfolio today. We'll try and group them so that his time is respected as well. I'll let him know about that later. I know he's responsible for overseeing legislation and accountability for a number of targets that the government has on the climate action file. That will likely be tomorrow afternoon, and I'll confirm with him later.

If I could just begin asking the minister some questions around the funding issues and the human resource questions for the ministry. We've got a situation where only a year ago the budget for this ministry was nearly $70 million higher than what it is today. The projection, by comparison, of a $166 million budget this year is significantly lower than it was before the election — an election in which the environment featured prominently and a number of commitments were made. However, this is the post-election reality.

I want to ask the minister if he could now indicate, because he was unable to in the fall estimates…. Could he tell the committee here today what the full-time-equivalent employment levels are in his ministry for this fiscal year, compared to the previous two fiscal years that have been completed?

[1630]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to respond to a few of the member's comments, I note that he did not request the budget briefing this spring prior to these budget estimates. That might have been useful, because we could have used that opportunity to remind him that, in fact, there were some changes with how the budget operates. That would have prevented him from incorrectly stating some of the changes to our budget.

What he's doing now is comparing apples to oranges. We canvassed this last fall, as well, when we discussed the 2009-2010 update to our Ministry of Environment budget.

He mentions that about two years ago you would have seen $237 million in the Ministry of Environment budget but today it's $166 million or thereabouts. The member knows, because we discussed it last fall, that approximately $46 million of that is a change to how water rental remissions are accounted for in the budget. Another $21.8 million is accounted for through shared services.

It's a change in accounting, as opposed to a decrease in funding for ministry operations on the ground. I think it's important to note that off the top. Otherwise, people could be left with an incorrect impression.

However, that stated, it is true that we have looked for efficiencies across government. It's no secret that the world economy took a major hit about 18 months ago. That impacted virtually every single country in the world, including Canada. The province of British Columbia was not immune to that, although it appears that we have fared much better than most other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world.

Still, our government revenues did take a major hit, and declined. We as a government feel it's appropriate to try and be responsible with the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars and try to limit the amount of the annual deficit.

Every single day, virtually, I hear members of the opposition in question period saying that we should be spending more on various priorities. In the next breath, they complain about the size of the deficit. It's very hard to spend more and not incur a bigger deficit.

I'm not sure how much more the member opposite would suggest that government as a whole should be spending or, alternatively, how much more we should be taxing or where money should be reduced from other ministry budgets in order to fund an increase to the Ministry of Environment budget.

If the member has got some specific numbers he'd like to put on the table, on where he thinks that money should come from, it'd be interesting to hear it, because up till now we have not heard that as an alternative.

In terms of the number of staff in the ministry, we also canvassed at some length last fall the reasons why the government feels there's a better way to report on finances than relying on an FTE count. There are a number of shortcomings with that methodology. That's been extensively canvassed, not just in these estimates but others, including the Ministry of Finance.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

I'm advised by the capable staff that are working with me here today from the ministry — including my deputy minister, Doug Konkin, who joins me, wearing a very lovely pale green tie — that as of February of 2010 there were 1,396 persons working in the Ministry of Environment.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could go through that, because that's a global ministry number, and I'm not sure if it was FTEs or persons.

If the minister could correct that and convert the part-time data into full-time-equivalency, it would be appreciated and then tell me some of the changes that we're particularly interested in, around parks and protected areas.
[ Page 5152 ]

We're just getting to that season around parks staff being hired up, where there are seasonal workers. What are the numbers for the park ranger service this year over last and over the previous year prior to that? On the conservation officer corps, as well, if he has FTE numbers — again, FTE numbers so that we're not mixing up seasonal employees — and that they're converted to, as the minister said, an apple-to-apple comparable basis.

[1635]

Hon. B. Penner: First, on the issue of staff for B.C. Parks, I'm advised that we expect the total numbers to be similar to last year, but the numbers have not yet been finalized. There's still some work yet to be done with negotiations relating to contracts — I think related to park facility operators. There's still some work to be done, but we expect the number to be very similar to last year.

[1640]

With the conservation officer service, they are also seeking some efficiencies. They've reduced some contracting costs and travel costs, and there's also been a change to how the seasonal program is operated. Members will know that we had a seasonal conservation officer program. The conservation officer service has made some changes there, so there will now be six new full-time positions.

A number of the seasonal — not part-time, but seasonal; limited in length — positions have been converted into year-round positions. That has resulted in there being a change from 135 total people classified as conservation officers to 130, as there's been a transition from a number of seasonals to more people working year-round.

R. Fleming: Will the minister endeavour and commit, then, to provide me with numbers around park ranger FTEs? I'm surprised that the hiring hasn't been completed as of May 3 — today. But if he needs more time to be able to answer that question, I just want to get his assurance that that can be provided.

Hon. B. Penner: We expect to have that finalized soon, but it's not yet complete.

R. Fleming: Okay. I'll look forward to that information, Chair, and wanted to ask the minister about compliance activities. I know that there is reporting out on the activities that is sometimes quarterly, sometimes not. But within that and the variety of offences that occur in British Columbia, I wanted to ask the minister in the context of this budget: what is happening with compliance activity within his ministry?

These are, of necessity, people working within this section in a variety of regional offices in British Columbia. The budget has been reduced in a short period of time from $20 million to about $15 million, and in policing services, compliance numbers are always related to capacity and activity.

I want to ask the minister, first of all, to give the numbers around the full-time personnel that are working in his ministry on compliance activities but also to ask what the impact has been. Surely, before he made decisions to allow — if there are — FTE reductions in the compliance section, he would have had to ask questions about what the trade-offs are, what coverage, quite possibly, we are going to lose in the province of B.C. to investigate possible infractions of the variety of acts that he is responsible for enforcing.

If the minister could give a snapshot of the compliance area: how many FTEs there are compared to the previous two fiscal years, and what, if any, activities are going to have to be cut back in terms of compliance coverage because of cuts that are happening in regional offices around B.C.

[1645]

Hon. B. Penner: Unfortunately, we don't have our compliance and enforcement staff here. I ask forgiveness for the delay. We're trying to track down our staff from the conservation officer service and our compliance office.

However, I can tell the member that for fiscal '09-10 the total budget appropriated was $15.764 million. In this budget it's projected to be $15.327 million, a difference of about $365,000 or 2.3 percent.

I'm advised that the majority of that, about $300,000 of that difference, is due to a change in accounting for shared services — again, the same topic that I touched on a few minutes ago and that we discussed at some length last fall. That leaves $65,000, and we're attempting to find those savings through a reduction in administrative costs and making some changes to the administrative structure in the senior management office in Victoria.

It will not result in a decrease in the number of days on the ground or in the field by compliance and enforcement staff within the conservation officer service. I should also note, however, that it's not just the conservation officer service that works to provide compliance activity or compliance services across the province.

We also have the environmental protection branch. I see our assistant deputy minister for that division is seated in the gallery, and her staff also work to assist in bringing individuals or businesses into compliance with environmental regulations in British Columbia.

Further, the government has been doing some work to achieve greater efficiencies and to maximize the benefit of every tax dollar that hard-working British Columbians send to Victoria by coordinating efforts with the Ministry of Forests and utilizing some of their compliance and enforcement staff and working to give them additional training so that they can provide a
[ Page 5153 ]
greater degree of service that assists us, as well, in delivering on our mandate.

I believe there are now 161 Ministry of Forests staff who have been appointed as class 1 special conservation officers and six Ministry of Forests employees as class 2 special conservation officers. This helps extend the reach of compliance and enforcement activities across the province, and it's particularly useful during a time when there's been a decrease in forest activity due to the economic downturn.

R. Fleming: Again, some of these questions can be followed up in writing with information as it becomes available to the minister, and that would be appreciated.

[1650]

I wanted to ask him about environmental stewardship. Again, there's close to a million dollars that has disappeared since we were here last fall discussing that budget. I just wanted to ask the minister to describe again how many employees in stewardship will be let go or positions not filled; what the FTE count is in that branch; and, if he can provide me details, which parts of the province, which offices, are likely to see a decrease in personnel working on environmental stewardship aspects in his ministry.

Hon. B. Penner: The member, I believe, was asking about savings in the environmental stewardship division of the Ministry of Environment. I can advise the member that there are no layoffs intended nor that have taken place within that division of the Ministry of Environment.

[1655]

However, there is some reduction taking place by way of voluntary retirement, and there are also savings through a reduction in funding this year to the Conservation Corps program.

R. Fleming: Could the minister give some details on the funding reduction to the Conservation Corps and also the number of positions that have been subject to voluntary retirements in the ministry?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised by the staff from the environmental stewardship division that they anticipate over the fiscal year that there will be approximately 11 voluntary departures through normal causes such as retirement and that the Conservation Corps funding has been reduced in this budget by approximately $1 million.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask, in the environmental assessment office, if there's a similar pattern here. Again, there's a funding reduction. The office has been reduced quite substantially over the last few years in terms of its overall budget.

In trying to determine, again, the human resources that fulfil the duties of that office, I would ask the minister…. In order to accommodate the cuts of approximately $500,000 that I'm aware of since the September budget, when we were in this place talking about that…. Just wondering if he can tell me, again: if this is being achieved, if these savings in the EAO are being achieved by staff cuts, how many of them are being accomplished by voluntary retirements, and how many are through layoff?

[1700]

Hon. B. Penner: I think the member is mistaken again here and missing the information pertaining to Shared Services. I think the member would have benefited from a pre-estimates briefing.

The change of $591,000 is entirely accountable to the change in handling of the Shared Services piece for administrative and overhead costs. So that means that the budget has actually stayed the same when you factor in the Shared Services piece.

We have the same number of staff at the EAO for 2010-11 as we did last year, and it's an increase from '08-09 of a couple of positions. In fact, if you go back a number of years — let's say to 2000-2001 — the budget in that year was $4.6 million and a total staff of about 38. This year it's about $8.9 million and a staff totalling somewhere around 55.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask about just one aspect of the environmental assessment office that is in their work plan. Is it the case that the EAO expects or is planning on reducing or maintaining the number of assessments that they provide annually for this year? Are there any plans to reduce the scope of the activities of the types of reviews that they have been conducting in previous years?

Also, how is the environmental assessment office involved directly with the discussions going on with the federal government about the streamlining process that was referenced several times in the throne speech?

[1705]

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of the number of projects that will be subject to review, that's determined by the activity taking place in the economy. There are currently about 73 projects that are registered or have expressed their interest in moving forward to seek environmental assessment approval from the environmental assessment office in British Columbia. Of those 73 or so projects, about 40 are considered active by the environmental assessment office staff.

I'm not aware of any changes in terms of what's intended for the scope of the types of reviews that are undertaken by the environmental assessment office but will note here that the Clean Energy Act introduced
[ Page 5154 ]
last week did have a consequential amendment to the Environmental Assessment Act. That amendment is before the House.

The member asked about efforts to remove unnecessary duplication and repetition of work between the federal and provincial governments when it comes to environmental assessment reviews. That topic has been the subject of discussion in Canada going back to the late 1990s at least, and probably before that.

There have been numerous meetings of Premiers and Environment Ministers from across the country for more than a decade trying to reduce the amount of duplication. There's been some progress on that front — not as much as most people would like. So last year the Premier of British Columbia took a proposal to the western Premiers meeting and then also, following support from that group of Premiers, to the Council of the Federation, with all the Premiers present.

The Council of the Federation, with Premiers from every province in Canada, endorsed the idea of trying to remove some of this duplication by having the federal government amend their legislation to allow them, where legally appropriate, to enter into what are known as equivalency agreements.

To this point, the federal government has not introduced amendments along the lines of what the Premiers across the country have called for, but it is something that remains a matter of interest amongst pretty much all of the Environment Ministers across the country.

R. Fleming: If the minister could just comment on a workload issue for the office, the EAO, that is related to the clean power call. It was just some six, seven weeks ago that 19 projects were awarded electricity purchase agreements. Almost all of them require environmental assessment from the province — at least 15 of them, anyway. That's in addition to the 40 projects that he mentioned that are being managed and worked on right now by this office.

I would like to ask him to comment on how British Columbians can have confidence that those assessments can be done on a thorough and proper basis given that the office has a lot of work that's underway right now. How will the ministry prioritize assessments that currently have been selected or are being conducted and integrate that with new demands that are being put on them by the clean power call?

[1710]

Hon. B. Penner: I've just had a chance to consult with John Mazure, who's the acting executive director for the environmental assessment office. He's seated to my right and behind me — to your left, if you're viewing this. He advises me that he does not anticipate any difficulty in terms of resourcing the environmental reviews of projects that are subject to the current clean call that B.C. Hydro has been working on over the last two years.

It is true that there is more economic activity taking place today in British Columbia than there was, let's say, ten years ago when the environmental assessment office was a little bit like a Maytag repairman shop, where the phone didn't ring very often.

Happily, today there is more interest in investing in British Columbia. That does mean that there are more projects lining up to have an environmental assessment review. That is one of the reasons why the environmental assessment office is today funded at levels higher than ten years ago — because there is more of that work that needs to be done.

In terms of just where specific projects are at in the environmental assessment process, it varies in terms of the ones that are on B.C. Hydro's shortlist or that have been awarded potential contracts. But in every case, before any of those projects could move to implement an offer of a purchase agreement from B.C. Hydro, they would have to obtain all necessary permitting and approvals, including an Environmental Assessment Act review, if they're subject to our process.

Even if B.C. Hydro announces that they've reached an agreement with these companies, the standard term of those power purchase agreements indicates that it's subject to the proponent obtaining successfully all of the required environmental and other permits that both the federal and provincial governments require.

B. Routley: The people of the Cowichan Valley were thunderstruck when we woke up one morning with the Hood Canal Bridge parked in the middle of Cowichan Bay. It was eventually towed over and placed right in the middle of Cowichan Bay. Cowichan Bay we view as a delicate estuary.

I had occasion one time to go fishing with my father-in-law, and we wandered off course. We were immediately intercepted by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, and they threatened to impound our boat. When my father-in-law, who was 84 at the time, managed to explain how we'd wandered off course, they chose not to impound the boat, and we were thankful for that.

[1715]

I am amazed that this entire bridge, which the Americans were at one point thinking about scuttling offshore…. Of course, there was much outrage in their state about the idea of scuttling this bridge that had outlived its usefulness.

Apparently, some scrap dealer from British Columbia found some use in the pontoons, and he was going to drag it into Cowichan Bay and tear off all the asphalt and cement. He was after the pontoons.

I've got two questions about the Cowichan Bay area, but on this one, I'm very interested in what the Ministry of Environment has to say about that. Is there any
[ Page 5155 ]
regulation at all that requires somebody who's going to move an eighth of a mile of bridge up to Cowichan Bay…? Are there no coast guard alerts, or is there no concern about the environment at all?

Some people got used to this thing hanging around in Cowichan Bay, and some folks were actually thinking about what they could do with this thing. I understand it was supposed to be towed out of the harbour sometime in April. I was just down there a few weeks ago for a nice meal in a beautiful Cowichan Bay restaurant, and unfortunately, it was still there.

I was wondering: could the minister update the good people of the Cowichan Valley on what's happening with this huge section of the Hood Canal Bridge? Is there any requirement to notify the B.C. Minister of Environment at all with such a thing?

Maybe it's all under federal jurisdiction. I'd be interested: are you aware of this situation? I can tell you this. I know that the federal representative of the Cowichan Valley has notified the federal ministry of environment. But I wondered if they communicated with you at all or if there's any requirement for you to act in any way on this matter. It is quite shocking to us that it could just show up.

Hon. B. Penner: I suspect that this matter is regulated by the Canadian Coast Guard and perhaps the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I will double-check on that.

I know from past experience that when there are issues pertaining to plans to establish an artificial reef by sinking an old vessel, that does trigger federal approval. The province gets involved or consulted when it may be in the area close to a provincial marine park. I'm not sure if that would be the case here, though. So we will have to double-check in terms of whether we have had a referral from the federal government on this very interesting issue that the member raises.

B. Routley: Thank you, Minister. It is rather interesting that a whole chunk of a bridge that's been in Washington State for years can find its way into the harbour. I don't know whether people are starting to get used to it. You know, there were alarm bells in the community when this thing first showed up, but….

Hon. B. Penner: When was that?

B. Routley: Oh, it's probably six months or a year ago that it first showed up. I know there have been letters. I've seen letters from the federal representative to the federal government about this. I understand that as long as it's out in the middle of the bay, that's federal jurisdiction. But they've been tying it up to….

Their plan was to pull it ashore and start destroying it. Again, I wondered what jurisdiction, if any, we had in that. I understand that the regional district in the Cowichan Valley has somehow got involved, and they've got assurances from this dealer that they're going to get rid of it in April. So it'll be happy days when we see it go. I just thought I should bring it to your attention, if nothing else.

[1720]

It's probably going to get towed over to Vancouver or somewhere where they're used to…. It's just like loading log ships. They like to do it someplace where people are kind of used to industrial activity. So this thing may show up in some other bay in British Columbia. Again, I would think you would want to know about it.

I'll turn to the other question. I'll try to be brief, because I know my friends have limited time, and I appreciate the time that they've given me. My other question is about Cowichan Bay. This may not have come to your desk yet, but I'm told that it will be arriving soon. I wanted you to be aware that the MLA has been approached on a number of occasions by people concerned about the Cowichan estuary plan that needs to be updated. It's an old plan.

There are some booming grounds that have for years been booming grounds. It was B.C. Forest Products, and then Donald Hayes has had it for a number of years. Somebody bought it, and they wanted to…. This is near the mouth of the Koksilah River. It's in a delicate estuary where a lot of folks from the Cowichan Valley are concerned about heron nesting. There are conservation groups out in the bay planting eelgrass, if you can imagine this, for the salmon because they're worried about salmon-rearing.

Now this fellow wants to work on boats. I don't know whether he's going to be stripping the paint off them or what kind of repairs are going to be going on, but the community is up in arms. Mainly the issue is that they don't want him to be given a 30-year lease without the community having any involvement in the new estuary plan. So it's my job to come here today and certainly plead with the minister. When you do hear about this, if you haven't already, I would plead with you not to approve any 30-year lease renewal.

The Cowichan Tribes are opposed to it. All kinds of Cowichan Bay groups are against it. The director for Cowichan Bay is opposed to this. As well, representatives of the regional district are opposed to this and believe that there ought to be full consultation and a full new Cowichan estuary plan.

That's the question. I guess I should ask: are you aware of this renewal demand, and have you taken any action on any proposal coming to you about renewing this for another 30 years? As I say, it would be very controversial in the Cowichan Valley. We don't want to see it happen.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]
[ Page 5156 ]

Hon. B. Penner: There's a bit of a difference of opinion about exactly the status of the matter you're referring to. I wonder if it would be asking too much if you could forward to us some correspondence on this matter, and we can try to track down the details.

[1725]

It sounds like what you're referring to could be a foreshore lease application, in which case it would likely be adjudicated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands or perhaps ILMB. I'm not sure. If you could send us some more specifics, we'd be happy to chase that down.

B. Routley: Just for your information, I attended a meeting where there was a representative of the fisheries who said that they were going to be contacting…. They had to do a report to you about a recommendation, one way or the other, as to whether or not there should be approval for this 30-year lease renewal.

I was told it was to the Ministry of Environment, not anybody else. That's the only reason why I thought I would raise it with you.

Again, it seemed to reach across all political boundaries, just so you know. It's all community groups, and it's a non-partisan issue where people feel…. There may be approval at the end of the day for this business idea if people, once they've had an opportunity to debate it and discuss it…. But they're very much opposed to the concept that there should be any approval by the B.C. government of a 30-year lease when the estuary plan itself is up for renewal within the next three years.

That's the issue, and yes, I will commit to the minister to forward you some additional materials. If I have it wrong, I'll be the first to apologize, but what I was told was that it was going to be sent to you. Thank you for this opportunity.

Hon. B. Penner: Just a quick response. I look forward to receiving that information from the member. I can confirm that our ministry is aware and familiar with the estuary plan, but the staff with me here are not familiar with receiving a referral on the proposal that the member just referred to. We'll await further information from the member.

V. Huntington: I know the minister understands my concern about OWL. This series of questions has to do with the ministerial mandate and how organizations such as OWL satisfy or can help satisfy the minister's mandates.

Throughout the service plan I note that a great deal of the language seems to satisfy specifically the objectives of organizations such as OWL. The service plan notes that some programs and services are delivered by organizations such as Bear Aware and the Freshwater Fisheries Society, and that those organizations often receive substantial funding from the ministry.

The goals of the ministry or the service plan are for healthy and diverse native species and ecosystems, with objectives that include managing protected areas to ensure the protection of native species and with strategies that are to promote partnerships with stewardship initiatives, to manage human-wildlife interaction through proactive and reactive strategies, to share responsibility for the environment and to work with stewardship organizations to increase environmental awareness.

My concern is that an organization like OWL, which is shabby around the edges because of a lack of funding but very large, very sophisticated in the manner in which it deals with human-wildlife interactions, very knowledgable on the medical necessities for the rehabilitation of injured wildlife…. It is working in an area that specifically falls within the minister's mandate, to protect the indigenous wildlife species — some of which, I might add, are on the endangered list or at-risk list.

OWL is adjacent to a raptor management area, a protected area. It's right across the ditch. It's in the area of the highest concentration of raptors in Canada. It has specialized facilities that enable volunteers to…. Once the bird is through the medical system, it goes into a series of different types of buildings that allow the volunteers to see whether it can fly properly and effectively. It's moved into a second building where they can see whether it is able to hunt effectively on its own.

[1730]

All of these stages of sophisticated management of these raptors prior to their release…. If they can't be released, OWL then takes them under their care.

I'm very concerned. I do not understand how the ministry uses criteria to select which organizations it will work with, which organizations it selects to undertake stewardship activity and how much it would cost the ministry to undertake these same rehabilitative and protective services that OWL offers if OWL collapses, which it's in danger of doing fairly imminently.

Hon. B. Penner: I believe I was present when you were asking the Minister of Housing and Social Development questions on the same topic around the decision on gaming grants and how these were allocated and prioritized this year.

To add to that, I can advise the member that the ministry does not fund wildlife rehabilitation centres on an ongoing basis. That's not something the ministry has traditionally or historically done, but in the past organizations sometimes did get funding — unbeknownst to me until last year — from community gaming grants.

I say "unbeknownst to me" because these wildlife centres always told me they didn't ever get any government funding, so it actually came as a bit of a surprise to me when I learned that, in fact, some of them had been previously getting it through gaming grants as opposed to direct funding from the Ministry of Environment.
[ Page 5157 ]

Now, we do occasionally reimburse wildlife rehabilitation centres for out-of-pocket or direct expenses that they may incur as a result of dealing with injured or orphaned wildlife that we have asked these organizations to look after. But we don't normally do that — I mean, in terms of asking these rehabilitation centres to look after wildlife — because our ministry is focused on broad population health of particular species as opposed to the outcomes for a specific animal.

[1735]

We try to focus on maintaining a healthy population of the species as a whole. That's what our ministry's focus is, except if that particular animal is of a species that is red-listed or is determined to be at significant risk of extirpation or the broader term, extinction. So yes, we have reimbursed OWL for costs occasionally when they provided temporary shelter and care to bird species.

In particular, there was an example involving two falcons and three Harris hawks that were seized from an individual, and the ministry asked the OWL organization to look after them for a period of time, and so we did reimburse them for those expenses.

V. Huntington: Yes, the ministry has upon occasion provided OWL with some of its out-of-pocket expenses. The minister should know that OWL has, on more than one occasion — on many occasions — been asked by ministry staff to undertake a rescue or to look after injured raptors, and OWL will usually do so on behalf of ministry staff.

So in a sense, it is performing some functions that ministry staff would normally perform. However, my concern is not so much that. I'm not asking the ministry to undertake funding where it has not funded before. I'm asking the minister to consider suggesting to his colleague that the grant funding for organizations of this nature…. I'll say that I don't care if you…. I would like the government to restore the funding to OWL, but it, obviously, is in need of the support of this minister to advise his colleague that there is value in what this organization does.

It is specifically answering some of the goals, strategies and objectives that your service plan has — for instance, to manage "human-wildlife interactions through proactive and reactive strategies." It proactively answers that through education and training and reactively through its medical and rehabilitative assistance.

It has a full-time education program. It educates thousands of students in a one-room schoolhouse it has on site. It educates thousands of students a year. It has a full-time volunteer training program. It works with youth at risk in addition to all of the work that it does with 300 to 400 birds a year.

This is a fairly large-scale operation that does what, I think, is part of the ministry mandate to protect, and it does so now with almost no assistance from government. I guess my question would be: would the minister consider a dialogue with his counterpart in an effort to restore the grant funding to this organization? If the minister has never been on site of OWL, I would love to take him through that facility, because he would begin to understand the enormous impact it has within the region.

Hon. B. Penner: As I said, I know that the member canvassed this issue with my colleague the minister responsible for gaming grants, and I know that he did provide the member with an answer. I know that she may not like the answer, but she was provided with the answer, which is that during the economic downturn, in a time when the government is faced with limited resources, a drop in revenue exceeding $1 billion while health care costs are going up, some difficult choices had to be made — unless the member is advocating for increased deficits and an increased debt burden for future generations.

I suspect that she's not, so I'm not sure what other programs she's suggesting be eliminated or curtailed in order to meet this particular funding request. But knowing that we had to make some difficult decisions, the government decided to prioritize the funding around support for children's education and sports, low-income and disabled individuals, as well as for public safety.

There simply is not enough money in any given year to do all the good things that we'd like to do. Make no mistake about it: the work that OWL and other organizations do around wildlife is sincerely appreciated. There's no doubt about it. But that doesn't mean that the government has unlimited financial resources. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made if you're in a leadership position.

[1740]

The alternative, again, is to raise taxes, cut funding from other programs or pass on an increased financial burden to the next generation. We're trying hard as a government to minimize the deficit. It's already $1.7 billion this year, but we're trying to reduce it and get back to a balanced budget, something I would think the member would support.

V. Huntington: Well, to move on, then, I'll just remind the minister that these are not numbers. These are living, breathing creatures that the minister has a responsibility for statutorily, in my estimation.

I'd like to ask a question about the species-at-risk task force — if the minister could provide us with a sense of what the progress of the task force is and whether it will be reporting out in June, as it was expected to do.

Hon. B. Penner: We expect that we'll be able to announce the composition of the task force in the very near future. We're just confirming participation by another
[ Page 5158 ]
couple of members. We've had some difficulty tracking down some of the people that have been proposed to serve on the task force and/or seeking their commitment to participate, but that work is very nearly complete, so I expect that we'll be able to make an announcement shortly.

However, as the member can surmise, that means that it'll be very difficult for the task force to do a thorough and comprehensive job by June, as we had hoped. I would expect that it will take them longer than June to come forward with the recommendations, and I would therefore expect to get their recommendations and report sometime later this year.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could advise us whether the terms of reference are confidential or whether he could release them once he has the composition of the task force in place.

Hon. B. Penner: I am operating under the assumption that the terms of reference will be made public.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister a little bit about the Water Act modernization process. I know that a number of MLAs on both sides of the House have had the opportunity to attend some of the workshops that his ministry put on, and I want to actually commend the Ministry of Environment staff that participated in that process. I thought — at the meetings I was able to attend — that they were able to run a good meeting that engaged those that showed up. I think interest was a little bit uneven around the province, from what I heard, but interest was very strong — from what I observed — in the areas that I was able to attend.

[1745]

Having said that, I want to ask the minister about some fairly wide-ranging questions that were opened up in the discussion paper for the Water Act modernization — not to be confused with the Drinking Water Protection Act, which is not included in the scope of the review.

In the discussion paper there are a number of very difficult questions for any government to face around this resource and its importance to our way of life and to our regions in this province. One of the questions posed is around when land and water activities that currently exist or future ones that are contemplated — when those plans may need to change because they conflict with stream health and aquifer health and threaten the objectives of protecting our drinking water.

I guess my first question for the minister is really around, in terms of the scope of the Water Act modernization review, what it will mean to the minister, as he sees it, as he sees the process unfold in this exercise. What will it mean if, for example, oil and gas activities that are overseen by his counterpart in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, where legislation now takes a priority in some cases over the act, where the act is silent and where there are gaps in the legislation…?

How is that going to be reconciled with, for example, the Ministry of Forests and rights under the Forest Practices Code to remove timber up to a certain riparian standard that is judged to be inadequate or threatening to a watershed in the new legislation?

Hon. B. Penner: In response to the member's question, I'd like to note that there were 12 public meetings held around the province as part of our Water Act modernization consultation process. We've been very pleased with the response, and I thank the member for his comments about the work done by the Ministry of Environment staff.

It's been a pretty significant undertaking. It is one of the larger projects that the ministry is embarking on for the next year. As you know, we launched the public dialogue around this last fall with the first-ever blog used by the B.C. government to solicit public input into a policy idea or item. We've had a lot of feedback through that process, and we will undoubtedly require some amount of time to sift through the various and sometimes competing suggestions that were brought forward.

[1750]

I think it is safe to say that one of the things we'd like to do is to strengthen the Water Act, which currently serves as the underpinning for many of the decisions made around water today in British Columbia. In particular, one of the subject areas includes source protection, what we can continue to do to improve and maintain the water quality in its natural state in British Columbia. That will be one of the areas that we're looking for comments on.

The public consultation period now is officially closed, but we're going to require some time to assess the various comments that came in. I haven't seen them all, but I know the ministry staff are busy with that.

We did receive submissions from people with ideas around forestry practices and also related to the energy sector, such as oil and gas. I know that my deputy has been in discussion with the deputy of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources around rules there from the oil and gas sector as it pertains to protection of groundwater and surface water.

The Chair: Committee A will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:51 p.m. to 5:57 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

R. Fleming: In our remaining time here this afternoon…. I know he didn't recess to see if there was any score in the Canucks, because the puck has not been
[ Page 5159 ]
dropped quite yet. I know our viewership at home is going to plummet precipitously when that does happen.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Cut in half, as it were.

If I could bring him back to the Water Act modernization — I expect we'll continue on this tomorrow, because there are other members who want to ask questions about this — one of the comments that seemed to get loud applause from those that were engaged by the process was in terms of allowing the public to look at what the ministry is going to do with the sum total of input and submissions that were received.

In the four phases that are plotted in the modernization effort, we are completing or have just completed phase 2. Phase 3 will be a review, and legislative proposals and drafting will come out of that. But between that and the introduction of a bill, perhaps in the spring of 2011, there is no other opportunity for the public to look at the direction that government may be going or to look at how they weighed the information that was received from the public.

There seems to be quite strong support for the public to have that opportunity, and I believe one of the assistant deputies may have even commented that it would be a good thing to have such an opportunity. There seemed to be an inference that he would have a conversation with the minister about that.

I wonder if that is something that has been discussed with you — whether there will be an amendment to the process as it's been laid out in this exercise — and if the public will have another chance, perhaps later this year, to look at how the ministry is proceeding and at where they're leaning on some of the major issues around water use and water protection.

[1800]

Hon. B. Penner: I've just been provided with some statistics about the public interest to date in the Water Act modernization process that we launched late last year. I'm told that to date there have been about 5,000 submissions through the water blog, as we call it, on our website. As well, about 650 people attended in person at the 12 workshops and public meetings that we've held around the province. Again, we're quite encouraged by that degree of public interest in the process to date.

I do know that one of the comments that people made at some of those meetings was that they're worried about the timelines and whether or not sticking to a commitment to have legislation ready by the spring of 2011 will allow for even more public input. That is one of the trade-offs that we're confronted with.

If we want to open it up to further consultation after we've sifted through and tried to group some of the major themes that have emerged from the public consultation, that's a possibility, but it also means losing some time in terms of getting legislation drafted. It does take time to get legislative drafters assigned.

Quite typically…. Well, because there are other ministries in government that are also seeking to have legislation drafted, if the Ministry of Environment is not prepared to move forward with instructions to legislative counsel by the end of this summer, we run the risk of not having a legislative drafter assigned to the work that will be required to update the Water Act.

That's a trade-off, and that's a decision that, I suppose, as minister I'll have to make. Before making that decision, I'm going to await the summary that the Ministry of Environment staff are working on right now of the various public comments that we've received.

M. Sather: I'm the deputy critic for Environment, so from time to time I'll have some questions for the minister. I wanted to carry on with the Water Act modernization.

I just want to clarify with the minister regarding legislation that will come out of this process. Is it possible, then, that there will be legislation before 2012?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes.

The Chair: If I can remind members, legislation is not part of Committee A, and it must all refer to Vote 30.

Thank you, Member.

M. Sather: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate the answer from the minister. The reason I asked is because there are references in the document, as the minister will know, to 2012, so that's good news, I think.

[1805]

A lot of the discussion, or a significant part of it…. I know the part that's very significant in my community is about instream flow requirements. While these are not specifically required under the Water Act, provincial decision-makers have included IFRs, as it's called, in their decision-making. I'm just wondering if the minister can give some examples, any examples, of when and where this would have been done by the ministry.

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct that the practice in the water licensing division of the Ministry of Environment has evolved over the years. Traditionally IFRs, or instream flow requirements, were not always part of a water licence.

I can give the member a couple of examples quickly here, mindful of the time. You'll recall it was, I think, last September that I signed an order to temporarily curtail the water licence rights of a rancher in the upper Nicola River area. That person had a very longstanding water licence that made no mention of instream flow requirements.
[ Page 5160 ]

However, due to very dry weather last summer, the combination of lack of precipitation with continued extraction for irrigation purposes meant there wasn't going to be enough water for returning kokanee sockeye salmon to spawn in the upper Nicola. I signed an order, which I think was unprecedented at the time, to interrupt that person's water rights for a period of time so that there would be enough water for the kokanee to spawn.

The good news, I can report to members, is that the kokanee responded immediately. As soon as there was more water in the river, our staff saw the kokanee move out from where they had been holding downstream and into their traditional spawning area. It happened like that. So it was an issue, and it worked. But that's retroactive, and that's an existing water licence that's very old.

There are quite a number of very old water licences. One of the issues we're looking at in the Water Act modernization process is: is there a way to standardize or, rather than doing ad hoc individual orders, is there some other mechanism we can come up with that is fair to agriculture but fair to fish or other users or uses of the water?

Historically, as well — for example, for power-generation purposes — water licences were issued without consideration for instream flow requirements. One example is Soo River near Whistler. There's a run-of-river project that I've been to there a couple of times. It's my understanding that their water licence does not contain an instream flow requirement. That was a licence issued in the early to mid-1990s. In contrast today, as a matter of policy, the Ministry of Environment does include instream flow requirements for run-of-river power projects.

A good example, just across the way from Soo River, is the Fitzsimmons Creek project, which literally runs between Whistler and Blackcomb ski hills.

[1810]

That project became operational just prior to the Olympics commencing, in February, and they do have a requirement to maintain a certain level of water flow in the channel at all times. Or stated differently, they can't extract for their power-generation purposes all of the water in the river. There's a certain amount that they simply cannot take. So that is how the process has evolved over time.

There are issues like that that we're confronting for agriculture but also residential drinking water purposes. The deputy was telling me he was dealing with an issue just recently with staff talking to him in the Nelson area, where there are residential water users. There are still more people wanting to build homes, and they're asking: where is the water going to come from? Well, if you're going to maintain a certain instream flow, there might not be extra water for people who are planning to build their homes there and expect to turn on the shower in the morning and cleanse themselves.

If we're going to maintain minimum flows, that means there's a limit. But traditionally in B.C. we haven't thought we had to deal with those issues. We've always thought we had this unlimited abundance of fresh water. In fact, unfortunately, that's not the case. There are limits, and we're coming up against it now.

M. Sather: Just so that viewers — those that are remaining now that the hockey game, I guess, is on — will be aware, instream flow requirements have to do with maintaining adequate flow on the stream, typically around protecting the health of the stream. A lot of those discussions come down to fish and their use.

I just wanted to ask the minister a question with regard to the Fish Protection Act. I do certainly recall the action that he took last fall in the Nicola, I guess it was. He said that that was unprecedented. Notwithstanding the run-of-river projects, have there been any other instances, then, where the Fish Protection Act has been invoked in the way that he did last fall?

Hon. B. Penner: The answer to the member's question is that we believe that it was unprecedented. In fact, I had to go to cabinet in August to get an order-in-council passed to bring into force a provision. I think it was section 9 of the Fish Protection Act, which had never been brought into force before, which gives the Minister of Environment the authority to curtail on a temporary basis water licence rights that have been established through a licence.

I did that in August, anticipating that we might run into that crunch in September if the weather didn't change, and unfortunately, it didn't. It remained hot and dry. So in September we then issued that order.

The Chair: Rise and report completion….

Hon. B. Penner: I will in just a very quick moment.

I do want to also acknowledge, though, that aside from the order, there have been many times in the past when the Ministry of Environment staff have gone to talk to agricultural users and asked them to voluntarily reduce their water consumption. Many times we do get voluntary compliance once the need is explained. That was the case in large measure in the upper Nicola last year.

There were other agricultural users who did voluntarily curtail their water consumption, but there was one rancher who decided not to. I felt that it would be unfair to the other ranchers who had voluntarily reduced their water consumption if this other individual did not have to — and also unfair, obviously, for the fish.

So with that, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report completion of the Ministry of Children and Families estimates and report progress on the Ministry of Environment estimates.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175